Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that yesterday, together with other right hon. and hon. Members, I attended upon Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to deliver the House's message of congratulation on her eightieth birthday. I have received the following answer from Her Majesty, signed by her own hand:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for your messages of congratulations on my 80th birthday and I am deeply touched by the very kind sentiments that you have expressed.
Eight decades is certainly a considerable span. During this time a great deal of history has unfolded and in many ways our lives have been transformed. New discoveries, new inventions, new outlooks continually challenge the established order. But I am happy to feel that there is one constant factor: the good sense, loyalty and patriotism of the people of our land.
During the war The King and I, on our visits round the country, were sustained and inspired by the steadfastness, courage and compassion shown by our people. It is encouraging to find today that in our schools and universities and among the younger generation these same qualities live on.
I feel deeply grateful to have been given the opportunity to serve our beloved country in some small way and through the years, in peace and in war, I have been always helped and uplifted by the love of my family, the loyalty and understanding of our people, and by my faith in Almighty God.
Once again, may I thank you all from my heart for your very kind messages on my birthday.
ELIZABETH R

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered Tomorrow.

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the London Transport (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Local Authority Services

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the level of local services in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): My right hon. Friend discussed with the convention on 20 June the need to bring the level of current expenditure in 1980–81 back to the level assumed in the rate support grant settlement, and gave notice of the need for further reductions in 1980–81. My right hon. Friend has also concluded that he must ask authorities to plan to reduce expenditure in 1981–82 to a level 2 per cent. below the volume assumed in the rate support grant settlement for 1980–81.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Under-Secretary accept that there will be a great deal of anxiety about the further reductions in public spending because of the rapidly mounting levels of unemployment? Would it not be sensible to take a more flexible view, given the damage that has been done because of the ever-increasing number of people who have been thrown out of work? Will the hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that there will not be new legislative powers to inhibit


the freedom of local authorities to increase the level of public services by the use of rates?

Mr. Rifkind: The taking of further legislative powers will depend upon the attitude of local authorities towards a reasonable level of expenditure. If local authorities abide by the figures proposed for 1981–82, it will mean that they will spend more in real terms than they did in 1977–78. That must be taken into
account.

Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend agree that costly experience shows that there is little, if any, connection between the level of local services and manning levels? Does he agree that the appalling statistics of empire building announced yesterday by the Lothian region offer, not hope to the people of that region, but more misery for the wretched ratepayers?

Mr. Rifkind: One realises that my hon. Friend is correct when one recollects that during the previous Labour Government manpower levels in local authorities in Scotland were reduced dramatically without any noticeable effect on the services to the Scottish public.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister take note of the fact that we are utterly opposed to any further cuts in local authority expenditure, whether direct, as announced today, or in the shabby, dishonest way in which the rate support grant has been manipulated by completely phoney and unrealistic cash limits?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman has still to explain to the House and the country why dramatic cuts in local authority spending announced by him were acceptable, but those proposed by the present Government are unacceptable.

Health Services (Expenditure)

Dr. M. S. Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received from Lanarkshire health board a list of services which will have to be curtailed as a result of Government cuts.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): No, Sir.

Dr. Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Do I take it that there will be no cuts in the services provided, and that that will apply to ear,

nose and throat, gynaecology, midwifery, maternity and geriatric services, and all services which the Lanarkshire health board provides for the people of East Kilbride and the area? I take it that there will be no raffles or prize draws to pay for the salaries of nurses.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I have not, nor has my Department, had any request from Lanarkshire health board for, or any suggestion about, any cuts that it intends to make to the services for which it is responsible. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question concerns a different matter.

Aid to Industry

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals and organisations have made representations to him concerning the payment of financial assistance to industry; and whether he is satisfied with the organisation of the present system of paying grants.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): My right hon. Friend has had no representations concerning the payment of financial assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 for which he is responsible.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that some confusion and uncertainty are caused by the fact that regional development grants are the responsibility of the Department of Industry, while other financial assistance is the responsibility of the Scottish Economic Planning Department? Will he have discussions with the Department of Industry to improve co-ordination?

Mr. Fletcher: I am not sure that that is so. There may be some confusion in the minds of some hon. Members, but I think that industry in Scotland is fully acquainted with the position, in that the regional development grant office, which comes under the Department of Industry, as my hon. Friend suggests, is virtually next door to the industrial development office, which handles section 7 assistance.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Minister aware that I have just received a letter


from a major employer in my constituency which suggests that the guidance that the Government are giving to the Scottish Development Agency will adversely affect that employer's planned expansion of a factory in my constituency, contrary to the agreements in principle that have been arrived at with the SDA? Will the Minister come clean about what is happening in inhibiting industrial development by the Government's policies?

Mr. Fletcher: I am unaware of that case. The SDA is free to exercise its discretion on matters of this kind throughout Scotland. It is not being inhibited by the Scottish Office in this respect.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that a more positive way of the Government giving aid to industry is for Government Departments to place orders with Scottish firms? I have in mind one in particular, the Jetstream order. We should like to see a decision on that fairly soon.

Mr. Fletcher: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The Government are most anxious to encourage their own Departments and nationalised industries to buy British. In this respect, I hope that my hon. Friend's sentiments will soon become reality.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Minister recognise the value of incentives to industry in many parts of Scotland? What representations has he made to the Secretary of State for Industry about the withdrawal of development area status from many regions of Scotland, in particular the Lothians and the Borders?

Mr. Fletcher: Representations about regional development policy are made direct to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, who deals with them.

Hampden Park

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Hampden Park Ltd. since his statement on the future of Hampden Park; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of Hampden Park Ltd. at the company's request on 7 July, following the announcement of the Government's decision to withdraw their financial support of the scheme to modernise the Hampden Park stadium. The company's representatives expressed their disappointment at this decision and requested that the Government should meet in full the expenditure which has been incurred on the project to date. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to give further consideration to this request on receipt of a detailed statement of the costs involved.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that the financial commitments of that company are due almost entirely to the fact that two weeks before the withdrawal of his money he gave an assurance that the money would be forthcoming? Contracts were signed on that basis. Will he assure the House and the company that he will meet that debt in full? Is he aware that if he does not do so there could be severe financial hardship for one of the oldest football clubs in Britain?

Mr. Fletcher: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's comment is incorrect. In the two weeks that elapsed certain liabilities may have been incurred, but they were nothing like the total amount that is now being questioned. We are sympathetic to the problem that has been raised for Queen's Park football club and to the requests that have been made for the Government to meet their share of the liabilities, but we require a detailed statement before any decision can be made. When that has been examined, the Government will meet their proper responsibilities.

Mr. John MacKay: If Hampden Park Ltd. comes back to my hon. Friend rattling its begging bowl, will he consider sending it along to Ibrox Stadium, where Rangers football club has modernised that stadium without coming to the taxpayer with a begging bowl?

Mr. Fletcher: That is a matter for the football authorities.

Health Services (Expenditure)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from health boards about


the effect which strict adherence to their 1980–81 financial allocations will have on the level of National Health Service provision; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Home Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of cash limits on the National Health Service in Scotland.

Mr. Fairgrieve: At their request, the Secretary of State and I met the chairmen of health boards on 25 July. They indicated that at least some boards would have to make savings in order to comply with the cash limits for this year. My right hon. Friend said that these limits could not be increased and accepted that in some areas savings would have to be made. We are satisfied that essential services to patients can be maintained and that there is scope for worthwhile savings that will not affect services to patients.

Mr. Strang: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "essential services"? Do he and his right hon. Friend now accept, following that meeting, that the only way in which certain health boards can stay within these financial allocations is by seriously cutting the level of staffing in the Health Service in Scotland and by reducing sharply the level of health care in many areas of that Service?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I am satisfied that no responsible health board in Scotland will have to cut essential services. With regard to the meeting with Lothian MPs and our meeting with the health board chairmen, whilst I accept that in the share formula Lothian is second from the bottom, with only a 0–7 per cent. increase in real growth, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not the health boards that are responsible for the increase in staff by the Lothian region of 3,520 in one year, or for an increase in rates of 40 per cent. The fact that the Lothian health board may be having to curtail recruitment might not be unconnected with the fact that Lothian regional council has taken on over 3,000 more employees.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt Scottish questions, but it seems to me to be an important point of principle that if a Minister is able to quote from a newspaper

when answering a question, a Member asking a supplementary question should be able to do the same.

Mr. Speaker: The ruling has been given many times. Ministers are free to quote. The rest of the House is not free to do so.

Mr. Home Robertson: As the Minister has repeatedly told the House that the real level of spending on the Health Service in Scotland is not to be cut, will he now face the reality that no amount of phoney arithmetic can conceal the fact that there will be real and savage cuts in the level of Health Service provision in many areas, and particularly in the area of the Lothian health board? Will he now apologise to the House and to the people of Scotland for having sought to conceal that information from them?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I shall not apologise, because I have nothing for which to apologise.

Mr. Home Robertson: Shame!

Mr. Fairgrieve: It is not the Government's fault that Lothian region decided to raise its rates—

Mr. Home Robertson: It is.

Mr. Fairgrieve: —by 40 per cent. As I have said, essential services to patients will not be affected. In Scotland we have made provision for a 1·1 per cent. average real growth in the Health Service—

Mr. Home Robertson: Rubbish.

Mr. Fairgrieve: —and there is only one thing that can interfere with that—inflation. The Government's No. 1 priority is to bring down the rate of inflation.

Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend take every opportunity to emphasise to the people of Scotland that there is no need to cut any essential medical services? What there is need to cut is the number of administrators in the Health Service, which, incredibly, rose last year.

Mr. Fairgrieve: My hon. Friend is right. The Clegg Commission suggested possible savings in 1979–80 of £400,000—a gross amount of £1 million in a full year. We put back this amount in the present figures for 1980–81 without asking health boards to take note of it. This sum is, therefore, also available.

Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware—he must be so—that his defence is a pretty puny one which merely amounts to shouting "It wasn't me"? Since he is seeking to argue that there will be no effect or impact on the Lothian health service, and that cuts can be made that will have no effect on that service, will he say what cuts should be made and how these will affect the Health Service?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I do not think it was a puny defence. It was a puny attack.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Will my hon. Friend, in making restrictions on financial allocations to health boards, seek to make the distinction which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is seeking in relation to local authorities, and make a distinction between health boards that are wasting money and those that are using it properly in promoting the correct services within the National Health Service?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. It is difficult for us to interfere because when we appoint health boards and their chairmen and members we trust them to decide on the proper use of their rescources. It is for them to decide how to look after those for whom they are responsible. It is not the wish of my right hon. Friend and myself to interfere.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister say whether services to patients will be cut?

Mr. Fairgrieve: Essential services to patients will not—

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I could have said "No", but. I was trying to be fair. Essential services to patients will not be cut. There may be some cut in services at the periphery in certain areas.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister say what are essential and what are not essential services?

Mr. Fairgrieve: These are matters for clinical decisions by health boards.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his latest

proposals for the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, fisheries Ministers have been considering carefully the case put to us recently by the fishing organisations about the economic state of the industry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the statement which is shortly to be made on the conclusions that we have reached.

Mr. Grimond: How much longer will we have to wait? Even with guillotines, we understand that Parliament is to rise on Friday. It is urgent for the industry to know soon. What steps have the Government taken to limit imports which are having a disastrous effect on the market?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern. It was hoped that a statement could be made yesterday, but as hon. Members know, events Intervened. It is hoped that a statement can be made during the course of debates later today. On the question of imports, the right hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that we have managed to take a lot of action in the EEC to raise reference prices and to improve protection against undue imports from that source.

Mr. Pollock: Will my right hon. Friend accept that had it not been for the wrecking tactics of the Opposition yesterday we would have details of that aid package? Does not the Opposition's action indicate scant regard for the true interests of Scottish fishermen, which will not go unnoticed?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that Scottish fishermen will deplore the fact that it was not possible to make this information available as soon as it ought to have been available.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is widely reported in every newspaper in the country that the Government intend to make £15 million available to the industry? Why can the press be told these matters, but the House of Commons cannot be told? Why does the Secretary of State hide behind bogus points of procedure? There


will be great anger in the fishing industry, over the fact the £15 millon is so puny in relation to what the industry demands and needs to survive.

Mr. Younger: I have seen all sorts of reports in the newspapers. Most of them, in various degrees, are inaccurate. No statement on the matter has been put out by my Ministry or by any other Government Department. The statement will be made to the House in the proper way. The fact that it has not been made earlier is the fault of the Opposition.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any money generously made available to the fishing industry will be allocated carefully to ensure maximum benefit for the whole industry?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have taken great care to work out methods of giving any extra aid that may be announced. That will be made clear by my hon. Friend when he makes the statement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side. Mr. George Foulkes.

Mr. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since it is stated in the newspapers this morning that £10 million is to be given to the fishing industry, and since the Government were apparently prepared to make a statement yesterday, why cannot the statement be made during Scottish questions today?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order to me.

Mr. Strang: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that his Minister of State refuses to meet the Clyde fishermen to discuss this issue? Ssince about 40 per cent. of United Kingdom fishing is done in Scottish waters, would it not be more appropriate for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make the statement, and not wait for the Minister of State to make it?

Could it not be made now instead of some time later tonight?

Mr. Younger: I meet the chairman of the Clyde Fishermen's Association frequently. He is in close contact with me. All fisheries Ministers work in concert on these matters, and it is for us to decide which Minister makes the statement.

Mr. Sproat: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the £15 million, or whatever the sum is, will be welcomed by the fishing industry in Scotland, but that this is only a measure to keep the industry ticking over? Does he accept that it is important to negotiate a common fisheries policy, with particular emphasis on proper access and quotas, so that the industry can thrive without subsidies?

Mr. Younger: So far as press speculation is concerned, that is exactly what it is—just speculation. I agree with my hon. Friend that by far the most important issue for the fishing industry is a successful negotiation of the common fisheries policy. All of us are putting everything that we can into getting the right answer.

Economic Policy (Employment)

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Economic Planning Department to make a study of the employment consequences of the Government's economic policy.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I already keep a close watch on developments in the Scottish economy. The Government's economic policies are designed to reduce inflation which is the main cause of loss of competitiveness and jobs in Scottish industry.

Mr. Hogg: Given that the Minister and his right hon. Friend keep a close watch on these matters, can he say what the rate of unemployment will be in Scotland by Christmas? What steps are being taken to alleviate unemployment, particularly among young people?

Mr. Fletcher: It is recognised by the Government that unemployment is still rising, but the hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers do not try to forecast the


size of unemployment at any time ahead. Neither party in power has tried to do that. The hon. Gentleman asked about young people. The MSC has already stepped up considerably the youth opportunities programme in Scotland. It has been announced that the Government are considering what further steps might be taken for school leavers and other young unemployed to help to ease the present problem.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend arrange for his Department to consider the employment effects of the ruthless use of monopoly trade union power and the work of spendthrift local authorities?

Mr. Fletcher: There is no doubt that over recent years the ruthless misuse of trade union power has caused a great deal of unemployment.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister con-skier that advice should be given to the unemployed to solve their problems by leaving Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: That advice was not given by anyone in this Government, because the developments taking place in Scotland are not simply encouraging young people to seek jobs in various parts of Scotland—it is common knowledge that some parts of Scotland are more prosperous than others—but are encouraging new jobs and new industries to come to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that in the year to February 1980 between 15,000 and 20,000 new jobs were created in existing manufacturing units in Scotland, and that several thousand new jobs were created in new companies.

Mr. Lang: Does my hon. Friend agree that one does not need to ask the SEPD to carry out a study of the employment effects of the previous Government, because the record speaks for itself? Not only did they more than double unemployment in their five years in office, but they so weakened jobs that many more have been lost since. Will my hon. Friend encourage his colleagues to persist with their policies, which we believe will create lasting jobs for the future?

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Even the most pessimistic economic commentator

does not suggest today that we shall come anywhere near the record on unemployment of the previous Government, who doubled the figures during their five years in office.

Unemployed Persons (Strathclyde Region)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest level of unemployment in the Strathclyde region; and by what percentage it has increased since the same date in 1979.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On 10 July 1980, 140,859 people were registered as unemployed in Strathclyde region, an increase of 28·5 per cent. over the July 1979 figure.

Mr. Hamilton: Is not the Minister ashamed of himself in revealing those figures to the House? For a change, will he stop blaming the trade unions, take his finger out, get cracking and do something about unemployment? Will he also, for a change, start talking to the industrialists about an expansion policy? Will the Government change their policy? If they cannot, will the hon. Gentleman resign?

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to know the steps that the Government have taken to try to overcome the problems of unemployment that we inherited from the previous Government. In West Central Scotland the special development area has been expanded, and regional policy generally has been sharpened to help such areas. In the enterprise zone announced for Clydebank a great new experiment in job creation is being carried out in Strathclyde, and in the new towns, which have been greatly supported by the present Government, 7 per cent. more funds in real terms have been made available this year for industrial development compared with the previous year. In the Glasgow Eastern area renewal project, the Scottish Development Agency has built more than 70 factories, and there are 50 more factories in this year's programme. There is major progress in Glengarnock and there is the St. Enoch's project, involving £40 million and 1,500 new jobs. That is action on unemployment.

Mr. Speaker: It is more than action on unemployment; answers, like questions, should be reasonably brief.

Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make 10 substantive points in reply to one substantive question?

Mr. Speaker: I have just dealt with that matter.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trade unions asked for free collective bargaining, and that in free collective bargaining excessive wage claims are bound to result in fewer jobs in the end?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is right. The Government and the trade unions are very much in agreement on that central part of trade union policy.
May I say about the last answer, that I am sorry that we are doing so much about unemployment that it upsets Labour hon. Members.

Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that, although he mentioned successes in the Garnock valley, the unemployment rate there is now 25 per cent? Is he further aware that in the Cunninghame district in my own area within Strathclyde the unemployment rate is 16.6 per cent? When will he do something to obtain an extra order for ships for Ailsa shipyard, Troon, and to make sure that the Jetstream project order is signed immediately for British Aerospace at Prestwick?

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that if I had further extended the list of Government action more points of order would have been raised by Labour hon. Members. We are taking action about Glengarnock and all the other matters to try to improve employment prospects for the Scottish people.

Forestry

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of forestry in Scotland have been felled to make way for (a) housing and (b) road building so far in 1980.

Mr. Rifkind: I regret that this information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that forestry and the allied paper and board industry are important to the economy of Scotland? Will he bear that in mind when any planning matters come before his Department? Will his Department review the situation relating to the paper and board industry, particularly the unfair competition that it faces at present?

Mr. Rifkind: I take the points that my hon. Friend has made. He will be pleased to know that the Forestry Commission considers that relatively small areas of land will have been affected by developments of the kind indicated in his original question.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hugh Robertson. I am sorry; I meant Mr. Hugh Brown.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have suspected for the past year, Mr. Speaker, that you have forgotten my name.
Now that there is recognition of the importance of forestry in the economy of Scotland, will a consultative document be issued, and will all the interested parties—unions as well as the private forestry interests, which do not want any further selling off of public assets—be consulted?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friends are engaged in a review of forestry policy, and they will make a statement on that policy when they have concluded the review.

Mr. Pollock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain committed to a prosperous long-term future for the forestry industry, and that when the statement is made it will confirm the Government's support for the industry?

Mr. Rifkind: I can confirm that.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Who gave the Minister the information that on such an important matter the information required was too costly to procure?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that collecting statistics of this kind involves considerable manpower. Over the years—not simply in recent weeks—successive Governments


have not considered it appropriate to devote that amount of manpower to collecting the statistics.

Robroyston Hospital

Mr. Milan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received Professor Halliday's report on the arrangements under which Robroyston hospital and its surrounding land were sold; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Marlin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the report of Professor Halliday concerning the sale of Robroyston hospital.

Mr. Younger: I have received the report, and copies have been placed in the Library. The report confirms that the initial purchasers of the land made a considerable profit out of the transaction, realised very soon after the purchase, and for this reason the transaction has attracted criticism. It confirms that the sale of the land at Robroyston was carried out regularly in accordance with the prescribed procedures, and that the responsible officials performed their respective duties conscientiously and with care. It finds that the relevant decisions of the regional and district councils on the planning applications made to them were made with care and a due sense of responsibility. The report criticises the dispersal of responsibility for conducting sales of property occupied for Health Service purposes and makes recommendations for changes in procedure. I shall give these careful consideration.
I should like to thank Professor Halliday, and Mr. Ryden who assisted him, for the thoroughness and expedition with which they have completed this most useful review.

Mr. Millan: I am glad that Professor Halliday found that there were no improprieties and that the recognised procedures were carried out, but will the right hon. Gentleman take note that I believe very strongly that those procedures need amendment now? In particular, proper formal application should be made to planning authorities about the planning position, because the excessive profit in this case was made because there were changes later in the views of the regional council and the

district council about the planning for the particular areas of the land concerned. We must make every effort—I accept that this case happened under my administration—to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

Mr. Younger: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I shall consult colleagues to see how we can implement the recommendations in the report.

Mr. Martin: Will the Secretary of State ensure in future that no land is handed over or sold to a company that has been created only a matter of weeks before the application is made? Will he also ensure that any company involved in a transaction does not acquire a further number of companies so that it can evade the development land tax? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that the farmland that is now in the ownership of the company at Robroyston is not developed, as it is first class farmland and is the only green belt that we have in the Springburn area?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I know his close interest in the matter. The matters raised in the first part of his question will have to be looked into with regard to the recommendations in the report. The hon. Gentleman's second point I think, is, primarily a matter for the planning authorities involved, but I shall look into it.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Professor Halliday's report has vindicated the purchasers of the land, who were the subject of a vicious attack but who, although they made an excellent profit, did an honourable deal with the authority concerned?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no suggestion in the report that anything dishonourable was clone by the purchaser or anyone else.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall that when this matter was raised some months ago at Scottish question time his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) made a disgraceful, scandalous and filthy attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)? Will the Secretary of State repudiate that


attack and ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his statement?

Mr. Younger: I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerates somewhat. That was a normal exchange in the House.

Job Creation

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward special measures to alleviate mass unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Government already operate a number of special measures to alleviate the worst effects of unemployment, particularly amongst the young. The youth opportunities programme has been substantially expanded this year and we are considering with the Manpower Services Commission what more can be done to help the unemployed. Ultimately, employment prospects depend on the restoration of competitiveness and the return to a soundly-based economy. That is what our policies are designed to achieve.

Mr. Brown: It is clear that the Government have no answer to the unemployment problem. They are deliberately destroying real jobs. That reflects their class views, and there is no doubt that the situation will get a lot worse. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government are ready to face the consequences during the winter? I can tell the Government that the trade union movement will not accept—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) has been here long enough to know how to ask a question rather than put a point of view.

Mr. Fletcher: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are having to face the consequences of the actions of the Labour Party during their five years in office.

Mr. Ancram: With regard to youth and school leaver unemployment, will my hon. Friend confirm that the measures being considered by the Government will not be like those of the previous Government, who merely created artificial jobs for political face-saving reasons? Will my hon. Friend confirm also that the Government will create real job opportunities and real work experience for these youngsters, who are Scotland's future?

Mr. Fletcher: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are anxious that the youth opportunities programme should include as many training and apprenticeship schemes as possible.

Mr. Craigen: Will the Minister tell us how many new permanent jobs he personally has managed to see created in Scotland since the Government came to office 15 months ago?

Mr. Fletcher: I have already indicated that during the past year in excess of 20,000 new jobs have been created in Scotland.

Mr. John MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that NALGO, which is among the trade unions so beloved of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), is still hell bent on making people unemployed because they will not join a trade union?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir, and the Government deplore such undemocratic action on the part of trade unionists and some Labour Members.

Mr. Millan: The MSC in Scotland has said that it cannot cope with the increasing unemployment without additional funds. May we have a guarantee that those funds will be forthcoming?

Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already given that.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what latest discussions he has had with representatives of the fishing industry regarding low fish prices and other factors contributing to the current crisis in the fishing industry.

Mr. George Younger: The industry's representatives amplified the case which they had presented on the economic state of the industry at a meeting with Ministers on 3 July.

Mr. Sproat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that quayside prices today are still very depressed? Is it not deeply worrying that 10 years ago we were importing about 15 per cent. of our fish, but that today we are importing almost 75 per cent? What further measures is my right hon. Friend considering to stop foreign countries, particularly our EEC partners,


from dumping cheap foreign imported fish in this country?

Mr. Younger: That has been one of the main problems of the industry this year, but, as my hon. Friend knows, we cannot act unilaterally. We have, however, persuaded the Community to increase reference prices for imports of frozen fish from third countries. Community tariffs on cod, haddock and hake have also been returned to the full rate, due largely to our actions. These measures should help the industry significantly.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware that any announcement that he may make later today about the level of Government aid to the industry will be judged by the demand of the industry for help of at least £35 million? If the response falls short of that the Government will be seen to have failed in their duty.

Mr. Younger: I am happy that the Government should be judged on the contents of the package when it is announced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen with interest to the announcement.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that we all await with considerable interest the statement to be made later today, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is essential that the withdrawal and reference prices of the EEC are substantially increased at the quayside? Unless those prices are increased the fishing industry cannot possibly hope to survive.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the difficulties. My hon. Friend has seen me about them on many occasions. These are the matters that we have taken into account in working out the help that we can give the industry.

Mr. Strang: With regard to earlier statements on this matter, is the Secretary of State aware that when I contacted the office of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday morning I was informed that no statement was to be made yesterday afternoon on the question of aid to the fishing industry? It is therefore untrue to suggest that a ministerial statement on this matter could not be made because of the actions of the Opposition. Is the Secretary of State further aware that when £3 million of aid was announced there was a proper

ministerial statement? If the intention is to make the announcement during the debate on the EEC, that will be wholly unacceptable.

Mr. Younger: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was told by telephone. He knows that there was business that might have been discussed last night, but that that discussion was prevented by the Opposition. That is the point that I make.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it is within your discretion to rule on the way in which the Secretary of State is grossly misleading the House. In the Aberdeen Evening Express last night the front page was devoted—if you prefer, Mr. Speaker, I shall raise this matter at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be fairer to the hon. Member's colleagues if he waited until after Question Time. However, the matter did not sound as though it had anything to do with me.

Communications (Interception)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions were undertaken for illegal telephone interception in 1979, and to the most recent practicable date in 1980.

Mr. Younger: Statistics on any such prosecutions are not kept separately from those relating to other prosecutions under the Post Office Acts or Wireless Telegraphy Acts. I understand from the Crown Office, however, that there is no record of any prosecutions for illegal telephone interception in 1979 or in 1980.

Mr. Cryer: Is the Secretary of State aware that at Craigowl Hill, near Dundee, the Post Office microwave tower is being used to collect information that is being fed into the Menwith Hill operation, which is run by the National Security Agency of the United States? Is he aware also that there is no authority to do that? The Post Office Act 1969 does not allow foreign agencies to intercept international or national telephone calls. Does that not mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland is conniving at illegal activity that is being carried out, at least, in part, in an area of the country for which he is responsible?

Mr. Younger: I do not know the basis for the hon. Gentleman's statement, which contains pure speculation. The statement is unsupported by any form of proof. I cannot add more information to that contained in the White Paper that has been laid before the House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The White Paper referred to British people being involved in such activity. However, it has been admitted by the CIA that it has been involved. Will the Minister look at this matter in the context of foreign agents? There is a vast difference between activity of this kind undertaken by foreign agents and that undertaken by British people. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should object to any foreign agent—whether American, Russian, or even Iranian—carrying out such activities?

Mr. Younger: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will inform either myself or the Home Secretary, according to which country is concerned, if he has information of any foreign agency breaking the law in this country.

Handicapped Persons (Warnock Report)

Mr. Peter Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his further consideration of the report of the Warnock committee on the educational needs of handicapped children and young people; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: I have published today a White Paper containing proposals for a new approach to individual educational needs on the lines recommended by the Warnock committee. My right hon. Friends have also published today their proposals for England and Wales. Copies of the White Papers have been laid before the House. I intend to embody my proposals in legislation at the first convenient opportunity.

Mr. Fraser: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for working so assiduously on this matter as to be able to answer my question today, but may I ask him to what extent it differs from the English proposal? What, particularly, is the role given to parents in the assessment of their children's needs.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are no differences of substance between the proposals for

Scotland and those for England and Wales, and the main principles—that is to say, abolition of categories of handicap and concentration on children's needs—are the same. The differences between the two arise mainly from our differing education systems and traditions and from different existing statutory provisions. We envisage that parents will have similar rights, whether they have handicapped or other children, as regards the school to which they will go.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and I introduced private legislation relating to the mentally handicap. ped? Is he also aware that there is a feeling in Scotland that financial resources are not being fairly allocated to the mentally handicapped? Does he agree that at this time of economic recession the mentally handicapped will be more disadvantaged than others? Will he try to do something immediately for the mentally handicapped, other than what has been said in the worthwhile announcement relating to the Warnock report.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I know of his longstanding interest in this matter. I hope that the proposals in the White Paper will meet with his approval. I look forward to discussing them with him if he wishes. All these matters are subject to the overriding need for finance, and I shall ensure that the needs of handicapped children are given their proper priority.

Store Sheep

Mr. Myles: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the prospects for the sale of store sheep in Scotland this autumn.

Mr. Younger: Producers have a good lamb crop to market, and the level of the fat sheep guarantee was increased in April by 11 per cent. The new Community sheep regime will give a further substantial increase in market support, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made clear to the House earlier this week. In their understandable concern to get a


firm date for implementation of the regime, producers should not lose sight of the terms of the regime which offers major long-term benefits. Meantime, I would urge them to market lambs normally.

Mr. Myles: As the June census figures, which have just been published, show a net percentage increase in lamb numbers in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend take every possible step to create confidence in the autumn store sales?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As there is now the prospect of a sheepmeat regime that should help farmers, I hope that there will be an increase in confidence in the sales.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the sales are already under way and therefore any announcement is already too late? I have received letters from farmers in my own constituency, and from farmers in the Secretary of State's constituency, stating that they no longer have confidence in the Conservative Government.

Mr. Younger: Plenty of letters on these matters come in all the time from sheep farmers and other farmers. The important thing is to remember the interests of those whom we are supposed to represent. They are interested in having a market in which they can be confident and in a sheepmeat regime that will help them.

Oil-related Industry (Tayside)

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase Tayside's share of oil-related industry.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Government are very conscious of the need for further industrial growth in Tayside and will ensure that any oil-related or other companies which might be attracted to the area are made fully aware of its advantages and of the assistance available.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is great disappointment on Tayside at the decision of BNOC not to base any of its operations on Tayside? In addition, the announcement by Conoco during the past fortnight that it is also running down has brought considerable despair to that part

of Scotland, which has not benefited from the North Sea as the other northern areas have.

Mr. Fletcher: I agree that there has been disappointment over the commercial decisions of those organisations. It is essential that prospective industrial investors should not be confused by a proliferation of authorities. The regional and district authorities must work together, regardless of party, to attract industry to Tayside.

Electricity Supplies (Colonsay)

Mr. John MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider taking steps to assist the provision of electricity supplies in the Island of Colonsay.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I am pleased to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has indicated its intention to include the provision of a public electricity supply to the island in its future uneconomic rural development programme, which is currently being planned to follow the completion of its present programme in 1981. The board has informed me that, provided a survey shows that a submarine cable is feasible, and provided that the future uneconomic rural development programme attracts support from the European regional development fund, it would hope to connect the island to the mainland grid by submarine cable before the end of 1983.

Mr. MacKay: Does my hon. Friend realise that that news will be welcome to my constituents on Colonsay, who are without a proper electricity supply? In the interim, can he give them any hope of an abatement of the high charges that they face for the electricity that they use?

Mr. Fletcher: The Highlands and Islands Development Board has agreed to provide a temporary subsidy to the Colonsay community electricity association, which will have the effect of substantially reducing the price of electricity to domestic consumers on the island.

Mr. Maclennan: Welcome though that answer is, can the Minister say what steps he proposes to take, in the light of the Secretary of State's announcement to support the differential charging of


islanders, to remove this anomaly and ensure that all highlanders and islanders pay the same tariff for electricity, in the light of the recommendations of the Consumer Council?

Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I very much regret the board's decision in relation to diesel charges. However, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that in this affair my right hon. Friend has no powers to give a direction to the board.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has made to the proposals of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation for further financial assistance for the Scottish fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

Mr. Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the leaders of the Scottish fishing industry have made effective and responsible proposals to the Government, which are worthy of a better response from the House than the sort of fractious filibustering yesterday, which put off the making of a statement on this matter?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the great strengths during the controversy over the fishing industry in recent years has been all-party support for the fishermen's case. I should like to keep it that way.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State tell the House here and now how much aid will be made available to the fishing industry? Or has the Minister of Agriculture not yet told the Secretary of State how much aid will be given to the industry?

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to obtain that information—which he should be—he should have persuaded his hon. Friends not to behave so foolishly yesterday.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend refute the ridiculous allegations by Ian

Grigor in The Scotsman about the inadequate representations to the Government of the fishing industry?

Mr. Younger: I noticed that article, and I was surprised at the suggestion that there was inadequate representation. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has done a magnificent job in making its case known to all those who are negotiating it within the European Community.

Oral Answers to Questions — ILLEGITIMACY

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Law Commission's report on illegitimacy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall reply on behalf of the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not unprecedented for a Minister not to be available to answer questions? Are we not entitled to an explanation? Where is the Solicitor-General for Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. and learned Friend is in Scotland, engaged in duties connected with his Department.

Mr. Millan: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. That is unacceptable. The first duty of a Minister is to this House, and if questions are put down to the Solicitor-General for Scotland he ought to be here to answer them. We do not want the hon. Gentleman as a substitute.

Mr. Rifkind: The Scottish Law Corn-mission has not published any report on illegitimacy, but it intends to prepare a memorandum for consultation purposes on the legal issues connected with illegitimacy. Matters are, however, still at an early stage because of the demands made on the commission's resources by its other commitments. It is, therefore, not possible to forecast when the commission's memorandum will be ready for publication.

Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for sending the information to me. I received it this morning. Is he aware that the Law Commission in England has produced a special report on this problem? In view of that, and the fact that on this matter Scottish law is different from English law, will he undertake to ask the Law Commission in Scotland to consider producing a separate report on this problem?

Mr. Rifkind: At this stage the English Law Commission has produced only a working paper. It has yet to produce any final recommendations. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be desirable for any reform on this aspect of the law to be proceeded with in a joint manner north and south of the border.

Mr. Pollock: Does my hon. Friend agree that an unfortunate habit has developed among certain sections of the press who describe certain illegitimate children as "love children", thereby causing great offence to many married couples in Scotland, whose children are surely much more appropriately the product of love?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has raised a fair point. He will appreciate that Government policy can do little to remedy that problem, but no doubt those who report these matters in that way will have heard his comments.

Mr. Dewar: Further to the point of order that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be extremely untidy to pursue that point of order now. Did the hon. Gentleman want to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Dewar: No, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Statement—the Leader of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I always take points of order after statements.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be unwise to change procedure when we are accustomed to points of order being taken after statements. [Interruption.] Order. I have no doubt that there will be points of order after this statement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am requesting hon. Gentlemen to wait until after the statement. I shall then take points of order. [Interruption.] Order. I have asked hon. Members to wait until after the statement before raising points of order.

Mr. Millan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. I requested him to wait until after the statement before raising a point of order. Many right hon. and hon. Members have had to wait until after statements to raise points of order. Therefore, I do not see why I should treat one hon. Member differently from another.

Mr. Milan: I am asking—

Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Noise does not influence me. After my request to the House, it is common courtesy—[Interruption.] Order. I shall call the right hon. Gentleman immediately after the statement. It is common courtesy that my request should be harkened.

Mr. Milan: With respect, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As always, I shall take points of order after the statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Order. There is no need for such excitement at this stage. Points of order can be taken immediately after the statement.

Mr. Millan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.


[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I hav asked the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat, and I hope—[Interruption.] Order. Our procedures will be spoilt if we do not follow the general custom. [Interruption.] Order. I have called upon the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement, and according to Our—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. Hon. Members cannot stop another hon. Member from speaking simply by shouting "No". That is not the procedure in this House.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I announced today's business—

Mr. Millan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement, and I intend that to be the process.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I announced today's business yesterday—[Interruption]—but as there was a certain amount of noise at the time not all hon. Members may have heard what I said. It may be for the convenience of the House if I make a fuller statement now.
The business for today is as follows:
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing Bill, to the Tenants' Rights etc. (Scotland) Bill and to the Health Services Bill.
Motions on the horticulture and agriculture grant orders, and on the Capital Grant (Variation) Orders.
Motion on Commission documents on fisheries.
Motions on the British Aerospace (Borrowing Powers) (Increase of Limit) Order and on the Financial Limits National Enterprise Board and the Secretary of State) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
The Business for Thursday will be as announced last week, namely:
Debate on procedure.
Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
On Friday 8 August, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment until Monday 27 October.
Consideration of any Lords messages which may be received.

Mr. Foot: First, the business that the right hon. Gentleman has announced for today, particularly in the light of events in the House over the last 24 hours, is an absurdity and an outrage to the House. It is quite impossible for business of this nature to be pushed through on the basis that the Government previously proposed. That is why we urged the right hon. Gentleman to take account of what we said last night. It would have been better if he had waited; then he would have been able to make his statement to the House on a better basis.
If any hon. Member looks through the business on the Order Paper today he will see that it is impossible for the Government to force through that business on the basis on which the Government have presented it. If the Government were to attempt to push it through on that basis it would be an outrage to the proceedings of the House of Commons. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government understand that that is the Opposition's view on the matter.
I understand also that there have been discussions in order to try to secure changes on the proposals that have been made to the House on the Housing Bill. There would also be some connected implications for the Scottish legislation, which it is also proposed to discuss. Therefore, I hope that a statement will be made, presumably by the Secretary of State for the Environment, either now or a little later in the proceedings. That will also give some time for the discussion.
We are proposing a method by which the Government may be enabled to escape from the situation that they have created. Many hon. Members were not present on Monday night, but the Government were warned of all the difficulties then—before we started these discussions. If the Government had been prepared to take account of our warnings on Monday, many of these difficulties could have been avoided. I hope that the Leader of the House will be prepared to look afresh at the extent of the business


that he has proposed for today and to try to postpone some of that business until tomorrow. That would be the sensible course to take.
In the meantime, I hope that the Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment will be prepared, after further discussions if they wish, to make a statement that will enable us to proceed with some of that business. On the basis on which the Government have so far proceeded, it would be intolerable for the dignity and proper conduct of the House of Commons for this business to proceed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The heavy business programme today has been created by the direct action of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Opposition were perfectly entitled, as they did—and I have never questioned this—to use parliamentary procedures to extend the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill so that it went into the next day's business.

Mr. Cryer: What about what happened in 1977?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, it has been done before. I am not saying that there is not a right to do that. I accept that there is a right to do that. But the right hon. Gentleman must accept the natural consequences of his actions. If the Opposition choose to use those procedures they will end up with an overcrowded timetable, which is not desirable in the interests of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has had his say and I have had my say. [AN HON. MEMBER:] "Sit down."] No; I have one other point to make.
I turn to the second point made by the right hon. Gentleman. It is vital that, apart from the Government and the Opposition exercising their legitimate rights, which I accept absolutely, we should proceed with these matters in accordance with the dignity and traditions of the House. If there is a possibility of some accommodation being reached on these matters, through the usual channels—an accommodation that will satisfy the parties involved and will be in accordance with the dignity of the House—I shall certainly support it.

Mr. Foot: I certainly hope that the House will be able to proceed. I still

think, and I believe that anyone who looks at the matter objectively will see, that the full programme proposed by the Government for transaction today is intolerable. Anyone who looks at it in the light of the proper conduct of the House of Commons, to which the right hon. Gentleman appealed, will see that it is impossible for the House to carry through all that business. Some of that business could, without any disturbance or addition to the Government's difficulties, be postponed until tomorrow. I have no doubt that we can have discussions about that and reach a perfectly reasonable result. But it would mean that the amount of business today would have to be curtailed from what is proposed.
I think that much the best course would be to let the discussions proceed. The right hon. Gentleman knows that discussions will be proceeding. I hope, at least, that they will be proceeding, and that a statement will be made at a very early date. Of course, we shall have to judge whether we think that statement is satisfactory. Such a statement will be the natural consequence of the action that was taken by the House of Commons. That statement was not offered to us before. We think that it will be offered now. We hope that it will be offered in proper terms. If so, I believe that it will assist the House of Commons to do its business.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those helpful contributions. I entirely agree that an agreement that respects the rights of the Government and the Opposition—I fully accept that the Opposition have rights in the House—is desirable. Such a statement will be in accordance with the dignity of the House and with the maxim, which I think is respected by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government are entitled to get their business through the House.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask a supplementary question—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you confirm that in the last few moments the Leader of the House has made two incorrect statements? First,


he said that the proposed business for Friday was the Adjournment of the House. I thought that that had been decided by the House, and was no longer a proposal.
Secondly, is it not correct that there is a Standing Order of the House that prohibits the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill being taken on the same day as the Committee and remaining stages? Is it not correct that the extension that permitted yesterday's events was a Government motion to adjust that Standing Order for reasons which, frankly, I do not understand?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have heard the statements from both Front Benches. Briefly, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point of order, there will be the customary motion on the Order Paper on Friday "That the House, at its rising this day", and so on. There must be a motion for the Adjournment.
Secondly, I hope that we are not going back over what happened yesterday.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Leader of the House said and the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) in response to some kind of mumbo-jumbo that has been taking place, would it not be in accordance with the decorum and dignity of the House, which has so often been trundled out by the Leader of the House, for you to suspend the sitting so that those of us who want to know what is taking place between the various spokesmen may know precisely what is likely to take place when the sitting resumes?

Mr. David Steel: I should like to ask the Leader of the House two questions on the business. First, what has happened to the fisheries statement? Because of what happened during Scottish questions, I think that we are entitled to ask this question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Secretary of State for Scotland implied that there was to have been a statement on fisheries yesterday? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that no such notice was given to Opposition parties in the normal

Will he come clean on what happened? When are we to get the statement?
Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman is a believer in a bicameral legislature, if the discussions between the usual channels involve some acceptance of the policy changes and improvements made in the other place to the Housing Bill, does he not think it unwise to proceed further with the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill and to leave it unimproved if some improvements to the Housing Bill are accepted?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the statement that I have just made there is provision for a debate on fisheries. In this situation that may be the most convenient position for any statement to be made. I shall certainly look into that.
As for giving undertakings about the making of a statement, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, the situation is somewhat fluid. I cannot give an undertaking that a statement will be made at any particular time, but I certainly take on board what the right hon. Gentleman said.
On the Housing Bill, it is vital that Scotland and England should be treated equally in these matters. Therefore, it is right that the interests of Scotland should be taken into account on an equal basis with the interests of England.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection, if not that of the Leader of the House, that there was some controversy during Scottish questions about whether a statement on aid to the fishing industry had or had not been made yesterday. In response to questions, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that any reports in today's press about money for the industry were purely speculative and that no statement had been made. In the Aberdeen Evening Express of last night which I received this morning, there was not only a full statement on the amount of money that was to be made available to the industry but comments by members of the fishing industry on what the response to that sum should be.

Mr. Dewar: Leaks.

Mr. Hughes: In the stop press of the Aberdeen Evening Express there were a couple of lines—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The issue might be important, but whether it is a point of order is another matter. Will the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) inform me of that on which he wants me to rule? That is the only issue with which I can deal.

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for taking so long to lead up to the matter. Unless I explain the background—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must submit his point of order, otherwise we shall have to move on.

Mr. Hughes: If I merely put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the procedures of the House and the rights of Back Benchers are being abused, you might be tempted to rule that that is not a matter for you. It is in order to put the point of order to you properly, Mr. Speaker, that I am trying to explain how the matter arose.

Mr. Speaker: I can deal only with straight points of order when the rules of the House are in danger. If the hon. Gentleman will come to that point, I will hear him out, but he must come to it.

Mr. Hughes: I was about to utter my last sentence on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that the Aberdeen Evening Express, in its stop press, carried two short lines that told readers that the statement had been withdrawn. Surely you can rule, Mr. Speaker, following a point of order, that a Secretary of State cannot say to the House that no statement has been issued and that reports are purely speculative when clearly statements have been issued. It is unfair and an abuse of the procedures of the House that statements should be withdrawn in the certain knowledge that questions were on the Order Paper—namely, in Scottish questions—dealing with the fishing industry in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard sufficient to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for the content of Ministers' replies.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I shall be asked to rule on genuine points of order.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Skinner: You have not answered my other one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North did not have a point of order on which I could rule.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did not have a point of order on which I could rule. The content of Ministers' replies, whether they make statements, and the relationships of statements to that which appears in the press, are not matters that come within my responsiblity.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House has made a Business Statement and has suggested that negotiations will proceed through the usual channels. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you adjourned the House because you thought at the time that that was the best solution. May I suggest that that is a possible solution that you should consider now?
If the Leader of the House persists with his Business Statement while negotiations are taking place, in effect the Opposition's position is being pre-empted as the business is progressing. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious when he says that there should be some compromise in conformity with the dignity of the House. It is only fair, bearing in mind all the differing points of view in the House, including those of the Government but especially those of the Opposition, that the House should adjourn, in view of the difficult background. The matter is entirely in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you to adjourn the House for 20 minutes or half an hour.

Mr. Speaker: I have no intention of adjourning the House.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Millan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had written notice of a point of order from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). However. I shall


take first the point of order of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).

Mr. Milan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said about treating Scotland and England on all fours when proceeding with the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there are considerable technical difficulties, given the stage that we have reached with the Bill. May I have an assurance, in line with the promise that he has made, that further consideration of the Bill will not take place today and that it will be deferred if it is not possible to treat Scotland and England on all fours?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give an undertaking in those terms. If an agreement in principle is reached that Scotland and England should be treated equally in this matter, how that is done becomes a matter of technicalities. If there is the agreement in principle, the technicalities question is secondary.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I am right in saying that you are responsible for the Votes and Proceedings that we receive each day. The Leader of the House made a statement in which, inadvertently, he made a false statement. He said that he made a statement yesterday. He did not. Those who were present yesterday will know that at 2.32 pm the Government moved, That this House do now adjourn. That proposal was carried with acclamation. No one shouted "No". Although I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is going to suggest that he did not put the Question, the fact is that the House adjourned at 2.32 because there was no voice heard against the Government's proposal.
On reading the Votes and Proceedings and the press—the information has been given conveniently to the press—I find that the House adjourned at nine minutes to 3 o'clock. Nineteen minutes elapsed between 2.32 and nine minutes to 3 o'clock. I have never known—I have not been here very long but I have been here long enough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I have never known an occupant of the Chair to wait 19 minutes to put

the Question when there has not been any opposition.
You came into the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, without knowledge of that which had taken place previously. Of course I know that the Chair is never wrong. I know that the Chair cannot be wrong. I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you were wrong. However, you did not know what had happened. You came into the Chamber after 2.32, Mr. Speaker, and you took the chair. You called the Leader of the House and his shadow, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) —I am not sure in which order they were called—but, with respect, the House was not sitting.
You were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. You could not call the Leader of the House or my right hon. Friend because the Question had been put and agreed to. I know that it is convenient that the Government give the time that the House rises to the press and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are not responsible for that. However, it is carried in the press today that the House adjourned at nine minutes to 3 o'clock. It is wrong to put that in the Votes and Proceedings, because anyone with ears, who was there at the time, knows that we adjourned at 2.32 pm.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is one of the most senior hon. Members. He has been here for a very long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] He follows the ordinary courtesies. He gave me notice this morning that he would seek to draw my attention to the point that he has raised.
The sequence of events is not quite as the hon. Gentleman described them. As soon as the Government Whip had moved the Adjournment of the House the Deputy Speaker proposed the Question in the usual manner. However, he did not take the voices. The fact that some hon. Members may have shouted "Aye" does not mean that the House was adjourned.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a great issue. I am being polite to the hon. Gentleman. The House was not adjourned until I adjourned it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A matter arises from the Scottish fisheries question, upon which I hope you can help the House. Ministers and other Conservative Members have given the impression that there was an intention to make a statement yesterday about fisheries, and that the making of that statement was prevented by the action of the Opposition parties. It would help us, Mr. Speaker, if you would confirm the firm impression that I have, namely, that no such notice was given, either to you or to your office. Will you also confirm that neither a Minister nor the Leader of the House took any of the usual steps to inform you that a statement was to be made? From my knowledge of the situation, I believe that no such steps were taken. However, it would help, Mr. Speaker, if you made clear to hon. Members and to those outside that, rightly or wrongly, there was no specific intention to make a fisheries statement yesterday and that such a statement was not prevented by the events that followed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: I do not wish to be critical, but I wondered, Mr. Speaker, whether we might still ask the Leader of the House supplementary questions.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It would be more orderly if hon. Members were to stop raising points of order and we were to return to questions on the Business Statement, which I am prepared to allow for a while.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise that I have not answered the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Normally I am informed of statements. I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to involve me in the argument that is going on between the two sides of the House. I should much prefer to be out of it.

Mr. Beith: Perhaps the Leader of the House will absolve you, Mr. Speaker, from any such unpleasant obligation by

indicating clearly whether he or any other Minister gave you notice of an intention to make a statement on fisheries.

Mr. Kinnock: Did any Minister give the Leader of the House any information yesterday that might have led him to believe that a statement would be made on education, or on fisheries? Why is there is no provision in the Business Statement for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement on two matters of pressing importance, namely, the Government's response to the arbitration award for teachers and their continued prevarication on the important subject of a salary settlement for university teachers?
Yesterday, it seemed that the Secretary of State was anxious to make a statement. Since he is not taking the opportunity to make a statement today, are we to believe that that anxiety has evaporated? Perhaps the Leader of the House will inform me that I am wrong, and that he is going to make a statement later. In the absence of any statements, will we have to rely, as we did last week in terms of the abolition of the Clegg Commission, on planted written questions in order to ensure that important Government statements and policy announcements are made?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the desirability of reaching some reasonable accord. In the limited time available, unless some accord is reached it will be extremely difficult to fit in the various statements. If a reasonable agreement can be reached I shall do my best to ensure that statements are made on these important issues—which I do not distinguish between—namely, fisheries and education.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I Order. I hope that hon. Members will not continue to raise points of order. I know that some hon. Members wish to ask questions about the Business Statement, and I propose to allow that for a little while. However, I have had notice of 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall make a statement about them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Barry Jones: I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) ask the Leader of the House a


question. May we ask the Leader of the House whether, his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously asking a business question. He has not raised a point of order, or a matter on which I can rule. Hon. Members know that they cannot address a question to a Minister by rising and saying "On a point of order". Hon. Members must be more orderly than that.

Mr. Straw: Will the Leader of the House reply to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? They asked whether any Minister had given notice yesterday that he wished to make a statement on education, fisheries or any other issue. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the cause of the present chaos in relation to the business of the House is the Government's desire to force through the Housing Bill and to trample on the wishes of the House of Lords—which the right hon. Gentleman holds dear even if we do not. There is no particular reason why the Bill should be enacted this side of the summer recess, apart from the Secretary of State's desire to upstage the Prime Minister at the Conservative Party conference.
Will the Leader of the House spell out—because it has never been spelled out—the compelling reasons for enacting the Bill, and who would be at risk if it were not enacted before the Summer Recess? Why did the right hon. Gentleman say on 24 July that it was no bad thing for the House of Lords to amend the Housing Bill in five respects? The Government immediately tabled amendments rejecting each Lords amendment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have no recollection of applications being made for statements. There is a simple reason for putting the Housing Bill on the statute book at the earliest possible moment. It will mean that tenants will have the right—as quickly as possible—to buy their own houses. Although the Opposition may have scored the occasional procedural point during this debate, the right for people to buy their own homes

is at stake. It is that that the Opposition are delaying. With reference to the upstaging, I do not know whom my right hon. Friend may or may not upstage, as long as he does not upstage me.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow business to questions run until 4.15 pm.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before the House rises on Friday about the proposed public expenditure cuts of £92 million and the grave unemployment that exists in the Province because of the Government's action?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot promise that. I know that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) had the opportunity to raise the vital question of the future of the Province in the debate on the Adjournment motion for Summer Recess.

Mr. Hardy: May I refer the Leader of the House to the agriculture motions on the Order Paper? Is he aware that there is a great deal of criticism about them—perhaps not in the House but certainly in the country—and that all conservation organisations and the National Farmers Union are extremely critical of them? At what time does he expect us to consider the motions? He has referred to the rights of the Opposition and the Government in this House but does he recognise that sensible and responsible organisations throughout the country are entitled to expect us to consider matters of this kind seriously and at a reasonable hour? They do not expect the Government to get the motions through at the tail end of parliamentary exhaustion. Will he discuss through the usual channels the desirability of their being deferred for consideration until after the Summer Recess?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There are four motions involved, and it is the intention that they should be taken two at a time. That will involve a debate of one and a half hours each. It is quite normal for motions of this kind to be taken after the end of the main business.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not obvious that the business of the House is in chaos


because the Government have attempted to cram far too much business through the House, even in this extended Session? We know that there are many statements that the Government wish to make, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will apologise for saying that he was prevented from making a statement when obviously he was not prevented at all. We understand that these matters are to be considered, but it is not only the Opposition but Back Benchers who have rights in this House. There are many Back Benchers who wish to say something. We understand that there will be discussions. Can the Leader of the House tell us when he expects the discussions to finish and when he will come to the House again to make a further statement to enable us to treat the business of the House with the dignity about which everyone is so keen?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that we are in a state of chaos. The Opposition may be in a state of chaos, but that is another matter. There appears to be a little local difficulty and I hope that it can be resolved by reasonable conversations through the usual channels. If it is possible, I always prefer to settle these strongly felt disputes on a rational basis. I am well aware of the rights of Bank Benchers. The Leader of the House has a duty to get Government business through—everyone accepts that—but throughout this year I have done my best to ensure that Back Benchers enjoy their full rights.

Mr. Fitt: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has today used a planted question to make a statement of major financial importance to Northern Ireland, indicating a transfer of resources from education, health and social services, and a cutback in public expenditure in the Province? Will he indicate to the Secretary of State that before the Summer Recess he should make a statement in the House so that he can be subjected to question and answer and so that the people of Northern Ireland will know that he must not use this type of procedure to put forward his points of view?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Written questions are an accepted procedure of the House. It is not as if they were a way of undermining our procedures. There are recognised

uses for the written answer procedure. We use it when it is not possible to fit in an oral statement. Throughout this year I have sought to accommodate hon. Members and Ministers with as many oral statements as possible.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the cat has been let out of the bag by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and that the crucial point is that the Housing Bill should reach the statute book as soon as possible? In that way Labour and Conservative supporters in all constituencies will have the same opportunity of owning their own homes as that shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I quite agree. I repeat that behind all the procedural manoeuvrings is the question of the right of council house tenants to buy their own homes.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before 12 o'clock this morning—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am making a statement.
Before 12 o'clock this morning, I received notice of 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9. I believe that we are getting very close to an abuse of the Standing Order. I propose to ask hon. Members to confine their applications strictly to explaining why the matter that they wish to raise is urgent, specific and important. I believe that hon. Members should be able to do that within the space of three minutes each, and I hope that they will co-operate with me accordingly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am now dealing with applications under Standing Order No. 9—[Interruption.] Order. I have just said that I am dealing with applications under Standing Order No. 9. I am not taking points of order at this stage.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is always very helpful and I know that he wants to be helpful now, but he


must realise that I must now move to applications under Standing Order No. 9. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] That is what I intend to do.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am not taking points of order now.

Mr. Lewis: Then you will have to remove me, Mr. Speaker. You will have to suspend me, because I wish to raise a genuine point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has a legitimate point of order; he always has. However, I have asked him to allow me to move on because I do not intend to take further points of order at this stage.

Mr. Lewis: I am not raising a point of order, I am asking a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking a question?

Mr. William Hamilton: You cannot do that.

Mr. Speaker: I can do it, and I am going to do it. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) wishes to ask me a question.

Mr. Lewis: I am much obliged Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask a legitimate question about procedure. It is not a point of order because you will not take a point of order. There have been discussions through the usual channels and these are continuing. How can we Back Benchers ask you whether you will agree to a manuscript amendment? We have not had the chance to see the Notice Paper. We have not had the chance to discuss anything at all. How can Back Benchers exercise their democratic rights if the Leader of the House will not hear us and you, Mr. Speaker, will not take points of order and we are not allowed to make suggestions?
Will you accept manuscript amendments, Mr. Speaker? If not, I shall walk out. I shall ask you to suspend me because there is no point in my being here if I am not allowed my democratic rights. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I ask you in a sincere manner because I think it is right—[Interruption.] If you want me to be suspended, then you will have to do it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that the last thing that I want to do is to suspend him.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House requires its Speaker to exercise discretion. I have to hear 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9. It is not unreasonable to move on to them.

Mr. Lewis: Will you answer my question?

Hon. Members: We want to ask questions, too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Will you accept manuscript amendments?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Will you accept them?

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the noise, I shall suspend the Sitting for 10 minutes.

Sitting suspended at 4.21 pm.

Mr. Speaker: resumed the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: I have often said that a brief adjournment is useful. This adjournment was useful for me because it reminded me that I had told the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that I take points of order after statements.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have given an undertaking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) that you will take his point of order. We shall come to that later. In the light of the difficulties that we have encountered, I suggest that the past 10 minutes were not sufficient to deal with the matter. One or two of my hon. Friends suggested that the House should be suspended while the matter was considered. You have already suspended the House for a few minutes, and I realise that that is not a normal occurrence. I am not suggesting that suspending the House is a normal procedure in any sense. But I believe that if you, Mr. Speaker,


are willing to suspend the House for half an hour, that might provide the best opportunity to obtain a proper means by which the House can proceed in an orderly manner. We have already had one suspension, and if we do not follow my suggestion we may find ourselves in further difficulty. I suggest that the House should be suspended until 5 pm or 5.15 pm. By that means we should be able to find a method by which we could proceed. I think that the House will find that that is the most reasonable way to move forward. It would be fair to Back Bench Members who have a paramount interest in the matter.

Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you have heard my point of order you may understand why I was anxious to raise it earlier. I was told by the Secretary of State for Scotland's office today that, although he could not make a normal statement about the colleges of education in Scotland, he intended to answer a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). Have you received any indication or request from the Secretary of State that he wished to make a statement on that important matter at the end of Question Time? If not, and if he now makes such a request—and I hope that he will—will he be allowed to make that important statement at the end of the business that we are presently discussing?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My office contacted the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) this morning and offered to request that question No. 23 should be answered at the end of Question Time. That offer was turned down flat, and I did no more about it.

Mr. Millan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot allow that remark to pass without comment. If the Secretary of State wishes to contact me in future, perhaps he will arrange to do so at the appropriate level. I made it clear to his office that I wanted him to make an oral statement today. He still has an opportunity to make one, and I hope that he will do so now.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Leader of the House aware that as recently—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a question of whether I am aware of whatever point the hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. Foulkes: Is it in order for the Scottish Information Office, as recently as this morning, to reply to inquiries from the press by saying that a statement would be made by the Secretary of State this afternoon about the colleges of education in Scotland, and then for no statement to be made?

Mr. Speaker: That is not within my domain.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are losing further time. We are discussing a matter about which considerable feelings have been raised in all parts of the House. If we are to find a reasonable way to proceed, and because we have lost a little more time, I suggest that the House be suspended until 5.30 pm. I am seeking to secure a position in which the House may sensibly proceed with its business. It would greatly assist the possibility of reaching a sensible agreement, which I believe is available, if the House were suspended. I hope that the Leader of the House will support my proposition.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I have already said, I agree with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) that it is desirable to reach a reasonable agreement on these matters. Since you, Mr. Speaker, have said that there are 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9, would it not be reasonable to proceed with a discussion on those, while other discussions take place?

Mr. Speaker: It appears that I may now call applications under Standing Order No. 9, which will take a considerable time. Those concerned in other discussions may thereupon be involved in them.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit my suggestion to you once again. I understand the desire of the House to proceed. I understand the difficulties. I understand


your reticence in wishing to refrain, if possible, from suspending the proceedings of the House. I understand that that is not a normal procedure. However, I seriously suggest that if we are to deal with the matter in a sensible manner my proposal is the most likely way to achieve that. I do not believe that a series of applications under Standing Order No. 9 is the best way to proceed.
There is another difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton wishes to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 on another matter. He has a right to do so. We have given notice on that matter previously. However, he is also concerned in the discussions on another matter. I earnestly suggest that the best way for the House to proceed would be to suspend until 5.30 p.m. I ask you to consider that proposition.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 18 July, when the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, placed the appropriation accounts for Northern Ireland before the House, he gave an assurance that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would make a statement about public expenditure cuts amounting to about £92 million. On that occasion I described the appropriation order as a fiction because we were asked to approve something that the Government were abandoning. The Secretary of State should have made a statement. I asked the Leader of the House earlier whether he would make a statement, but he said that there was no need to do so. I subsequently discovered that the Secretary of State had made a statement about the public expenditure cuts attached to an answer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is not my responsibility if a statement has not been made. I can rule only on matters that fall within my responsibility.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), he made a suggestion which might suit the two Front Benches but I am more concerned with the Back Benchers, who will not be involved in any discussions. Eventually, we shall have to come to a guillotine motion. However

we were to have had five and a half hours, I think, to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 116. At the present rate, it looks as though it will be 9 p.m. before we even reach them. Unless Back Benchers have the chance to move manuscript amendments to the proposed guillotine motion, we shall have no time at all to discuss any of these amendments. This is a very important matter.
Therefore, if you, Mr. Speaker, cannot agree to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale for an adjournment, may I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, to accept an adjournment so that we can get together to discuss this matter? I suggest that we are entitled to have the five and a half hours for the first group of amendments—the Government's proposal—one and a half hours for the second group of amendments, and another one and a half hours for the next group, irrespective of when we start. Unless we are given that time, we shall not be able to put up sufficient arguments.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman submits a manuscript amendment, I shall give it the utmost consideration; but I say that without giving any guarantee at this stage, because no Speaker could be expected to give one.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the will of the House is that we should move on. [Interruption.] Order. It is quite clear that there is unanimity.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will see from the Order Paper that my name is at the head of those of a group of hon. Members who have put a block on the Eastbourne Harbour Bill. Two of those hon. Members, myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) have written to the promoters, at their offer to discuss the matter of the Bill. We would not wish in any way to prejudge a meeting. The fact that the Bill is on the Order Paper and has been announced by the Leader of the House as being taken preempts the rights of Back Benchers to be able to discuss private business in the traditional way of the House of Commons.
Therefore, it seems to me that this is a factor which ought to enter into the views of the Leader of the House when the discussions are taking place through the usual channels. This is an entirely new factor which no one has mentioned so far, and it seems to me that the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) should he allowed to proceed—that is, that the sitting should be suspended for three-quarters of an hour so that the rights of six Back Benchers, at least, can be taken into account in adjusting the business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chairman of Ways and Means gave notice that the private business was to proceed at 7 o'clock this evening. Notice had been given to the House in advance.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps it would go some way to meet the point made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—although, Mr. Speaker, it is entirely within your discretion and it is your decision—if, in order to facilitate the discussions, we adjourned for a half an hour.

Mr. Speaker: The sitting is suspended until 5.15 pm.

Sitting suspended at 4.45 pm.

Mr. Speaker: resumed the Chair.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With permission, Mr. Speaker, following discussions through the usual channels I would like to make a Business Statement.
The business for today will now be as follows:
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing Bill;
Opposed private business;
British Aerospace Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) and Financial Limits (National Enterprise Board and Secretary of State) Orders.
The business for tomorrow will be:
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill and the Health Services Bill;
Agriculture and horticulture Orders;
Motion on Common fisheries policy.
I am very happy that an amicable agreement has been reached on these matters.

Mr. Foot: I thank the Leader of the House for rearranging the business. I certainly think that that will greatly assist the House, because I believe, as I previously indicated, that the business for today was impossible for the House to deal with.
In the matter of the Housing Bill I suggest that the best way to proceed is for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement before we proceed to the guillotine motion. That would be the most agreeable way for the House to deal with the matter. If the Secretary of State is prepared to make a statement at that stage, I believe that the House will be able to embark upon the Housing Bill with a clear understanding of what the Government are proposing.
I hope that the proposal made by the Leader of the House and my proposal dealing with the way in which we should approach the Housing Bill will be satisfactory to the House. As a result of these discussions I hope that we shall be able to overcome some of the difficulties with which the House had to contend earlier today.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall pass his suggestion on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, I understand, is amenable to the suggestion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps hon. Members will now agree to our making progress on the Standing Order.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I entitled to ask a question on the Business Statement?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will realise that all this will have an effect on the House in the small hours of the morning.

Mr. English: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Has the Leader of the House just told us that the two Front Benches, as a result of a carve-up between them, have abolished the procedure debate, in which


Back Benchers on both sides of the Chamber were endeavouring to reform our procedure, with, I may say, the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the procedure debate has been postponed to the overspill period. However, it has not been postponed further than that. The procedure debate, together with the Government resolutions that have been tabled, will be taken in the first week after we return from the recess.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Leader of the House recognise that this agreement has been made without the consent or knowledge of Back-Bench Members and that they will not be bound by it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the limited time available, it has not been possible to consult all Back-Bench Members on this matter. Some Back-Bench Members have been consulted. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is in the best interests of the House, both Front and Back Benches. This is not a conspiracy of the Front Benches against the rights of Back Benchers.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Leader of the House urge on the Secretary of State for Scotland that, in the interests of his own reputation, he should take the opportunity tomorrow to make a statement on Scottish colleges of education? Will there also be a statement on how the Government intend to put Scotland on all fours with England in housing legislation?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall pass on those requests to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the Leader of the House aware that, if the Government are prepared to be considerate regarding the legitimate aspirations of the Opposition about opposing the Housing Bill, some of us will be willing to co-operate in the agreement made between the Front Benches?
Therefore, I am willing to withdraw my application to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous gesture.

I hope that it will be followed by 12 other hon. Members.

Mr. Fitt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you on a point of order whether this can be taken as a question to the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be a lot easier if the hon. Gentleman addresses his question to the Leader of the House. He is likely to get a more intelligent reply.

Mr. Fitt: I should like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to question No. 20 on 10 July by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. BruceGardyne) relating to the De Lorean car factory in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman was given an undertaking by the Minister of State that before the Summer Recess an answer would be given to that question. That answer was given today and I have absolutely no quarrel with it. But in that answer there is a statement of Government policy on financial arrangements in Northern Ireland.
Tied in with the answer relating to De Lorean there is a statement that there is to be a £10 million cutback on education, a £10 million cutback on health and social services and £10 million to be added to what are known as protective services in Northern Ireland. Does the Leader of the House regard it as fair to the people of Northern Ireland that a statement of such magnitude should be issued in that way without Northern Ireland Members having an opportunity to question the Secretary of State on the implications? Will he, even at this eleventh hour before the recess, arrange for the Secretary of State to be given an opportunity to express his opinion on the matter in the House?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take seriously the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is top for questions tomorrow, so, within the rules of order, there will no doubt be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the point.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the three hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that the so-called bargain


which has been struck between certain Front Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House is not very good, even though it may contain the dropping of those 200,000 elderly persons' dwellings which could eventually be sold to property speculators under the terms of the Housing Bill?

Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) would sell them his house.

Mr. Skinner: How does that bargain square with the fact that a few hours ago on the radio the Leader of the House, long before he made any statement to the House of Commons today, implied that he did not expect the Housing Bill to be on the statute book before the Tory Party conference but that it would, I think his words were, have to wait another three months? To that extent, would it not have been better if the Housing Bill had been dropped from the business today instead of having it paraded in front of the Tory Party conference in October?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that what I stated was rather different from what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Skinner: I heard it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No doubt the hon. Gentleman heard it, but I said it. In so far as I can recollect from one moment to another on such a day what I have said, what I said on that occasion was that I hoped that it would be available. But, whether I hoped that it would or would not, it seems now that it will be.

Mr. Cryer: Would it not have been better for all concerned if the private business set down for consideration after the Housing Bill had been deferred to the spillover period so that some of us could have a meeting with the promoters of the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, as has been indicated?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member

for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not adequate when savage cuts are being made in Northern Ireland expenditure without a statement and when money is being allocated to the De Lorean car company which some of us think is nothing more than a gigantic rip-off?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. That matter should be pursued with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at Northern Ireland question time.
I should have no objection to the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman about the disposal of private business, but it is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. He decides where private business should fall; and it is important that his independence be respected.

Mr. Craigen: Why did not the Government think fit to make a proper statement on the future of colleges of education in Scotland as they are proposing to close two of those colleges—Hamilton and Callendar Park—and have done by way of a sneaky written answer to me this afternoon after a great deal of arm-twisting of the Scottish Office to get the reply.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It has been difficult in these circumstances to fit in all the oral statements which I should like. There has been a statement on this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands why in the circumstances it was made in that manner.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I inform the House that there are now eight applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall be grateful if there is any reduction in that number.

Mr. Straw: In view of the major concessions which have been forced out of the Government this afternoon, notwithstanding that they have a majority of 70 over Labour Members, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my application.

SIR JAMES FARMER NORTON (SALFORD)

Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement today that the Salford engineering firm of Sir James Farmer Norton has been placed in the hands of the receiver and is to be offered for sale.
In recent years that firm has been much reduced. There are now 320 workers employed at that factory, many of them personal friends of mine, and they are mostly highly skilled.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the three points that I mentioned earlier: urgency, the specific nature, and the importance of the matter.

Mr. Allaun: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. The importance is that many of these skilled men, who are in danger of dismissal, will not return and will be lost to the industry for ever. That would be a tremendous loss to the country as a whole.
This morning I spoke to the AUEW representative for the area, who told me that every morning he is frightened to look at his post because a new announcement of a closure takes place every day. The whole city is being denuded of employment.
Normally, when a liquidator takes over there is a subsequent closure and all those concerned are made redundant. That is what might happen in this case. This is a textile engineering firm, and there is little chance of its being taken over as a running concern because the Government, through their high interest rates, have made the pound overvalued, and the company cannot sell its products. The firm produces textile machinery, and if it falls—along with others on the danger list—the industry will virtually collapse. Therefore, this is a subject that deserves precedence over all other issues today.

Mr. Speaker: I listened with care and interest to the hon. Gentleman, who asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss the matter of the Salford

engineering firm Sir James Farmer Norton, which is now in the hands of a receiver and which is for sale. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SUPPLEMENTARY RATE SUPPORT GRANT)

Mr. Hattersley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which falls wholly within ministerial responsibilities and which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the duty of the Government to publish immediately the criteria against which they will judge whether local authorities are to be penalised by a reduction in their supplementary rate support grant.
This is a matter of complexity, but it is also a matter of considerable democratic importance. A number of local authorities are about to be punished for what the Government call over-spending. Yet the rules that define that offence have not been made available to local authorities. Therefore, at the moment it is impossible for them to know how they can avoid those penalties. The Opposition believe that it is urgently necessary for local authorities to be provided with that information.
The Secretary of State has already announced that he will withhold grants from 20 authorities, and he has described guidelines under which and within which every local authority could be penalised. The guidelines cover 241 authorities out of a possible total of 450, and there is no way in which those authorities can know how they can avoid the penalties and how they can receive the full amount of rate support grant to which they are entitled.
Responding to your wish that there be the briefest of discussions, Mr. Speaker, I shall describe neither the uncertainties of local authorities which put them under the most deplorable and intolerable conditions nor how the Secretary of State may use his discretion in a way that I would describe as arbitrary and possibly capricious. I simply repeat that at this moment local authorities cannot be told and do not know how they can avoid penalties with which they have been threatened by the Secretary of State.
To the Opposition it seems an elementary item of justice that the rules governing the conduct of local authorities, the breaking of which results in punishment, and the observance of which results in absolution, should be published in time for local authorities to respond to the Secretary of State's threats in the knowledge of the penalties and offences.
On many occasions this week the Opposition have pressed the Government to make clear those rules. The information necessary to do so is now at their disposal as local authorities made new returns for spending available to the Department by Friday last week. We asked the Government to make clear those rules at Question Time and during the debate on the Summer Adjournment. It is an elementary item of justice that the offence should be publicly defined. That will only happen if the House debates the matter at the first possible moment.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely
the duty of the Government to publish immediately the criteria against which they will judge whether a local authority is to be penal-issued by a reduction in its supplementary rate support grant.
I listened with great care and anxiety to the right hon. Gentleman, who has undoubtedly raised an important matter. But, as the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors that are set out in the order, but to give no reasons for my decision. As I said, I listened with great care to the right hon. Gentleman, but his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

CARIBBEAN (HURRICANE ALLEN)

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which falls wholly within ministerial responsibilities and which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the question of British aid to the Caribbean in the aftermath of Hurricane Allen.
This hurricane is one of unprecedented force and has affected islands such as St. Kitts, St. Lucia, Dominica, Barbados and Jamaica—islands in which our constituents' relatives live. I note from the evening papers today that there are thousands of British holidaymakers on those islands whose whereabouts and welfare are not at present known. This is a tragedy that is close to people in this country. There have been deaths, and there are reports of extensive damage. This matter is important, both to those islands and to people in this country, and it should receive urgent consideration.
There is a second reason why the matter requires urgent consideration. Those islands have been badly hit by oil prices, they rely heavily on crops such as sugar and bananas, and the damage caused by a hurricane has a far greater effect than it would have in an industrialised country.
There is a final reason why the matter should be given urgent consideration. The Government have been negotiating with Jamaica about a loan to that country, but they have postponed the negotiations because of the Government's view of Jamaica's economy and because of the difference of opinion between Jamaica and the International Monetary Fund. In the light of what has happened yesterday and today, I believe that this matter warrants urgent consideration by the House.
Elections are due to be held in Jamaica in the autumn, and it is possible that high winds in Jamaica and elsewhere could have not only physical repercussions, but political repercussions also. It would be wrong to withhold aid, and we should have an opportunity to discuss the matter. Consideration can be given under Standing Order No. 9 to the administrative responsibilities of Ministers, and consideration should be given to whether there is any other possibility of Parliament discussing the matter urgently.


Clearly, between now and Friday there is no possibility of hat arising.
Urgent aid should be given to Jamaica and to the other islands that are affected. This is a matter for urgent consideration, particularly in view of political developments, and on that basis I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
British aid to the Caribbean in the aftermath of Hurricane Allen.
The House will have been disturbed by the hon. Gentleman's description of the grievous conditions in the Caribbean. However, the House knows that I am directed to take into account not only the factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I listened with anxious care, as did the House, to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

TRIDENT NUCLEAR MISSILE

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to spend £5 billion on a Trident nuclear missile.
The matter is undoubtedly specific in the sense that the Government have definitely made the decision and have specifically said that the cost will be £5 billion spread over five years—not £4.9 billion, not £51 billion, but £5 billion exactly. It will probably be twice that figure before we get the thing. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, you might argue that it is not specific.
The matter is certainly important. Its importance cannot be exaggerated. At a time when the Government are actively engaged in slashing expenditure on all the social services—on housing, health, education, school meals and home helps—when they are set to rob the old-age pensioners this coming November of about £100 million by deferring the payment of their pensions increase for a fortnight, when council house building is to be virtually drawn to a halt, and when total national output is on the slide, it is the height of folly and irresponsibility for the Government to commit themselves unequivocally, irrevocably and come what may to this extravagant nonsense. The outcome of a referendum would support the views that we are advancing.
The House and the electorate have been kept in the dark about these matters. The Tory Party's claim that it believes in open government is shown by this exercise to be the nonsense that it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the speech that he would make if I granted his application. He must address himself to the three issues that are set out in the order.

Mr. Hamilton: I am about to conclude, Mr. Speaker. I have established the importance of the subject and the sense of urgency. The issue has never been debated on a full day in the House in Government time or in Opposition time. The decision was made without the knowledge or consent of some members of the Cabinet. It is almost the most important subject that the House can debate this century.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to spend £5 billion on a Trident nuclear missile.
I listened with care and concern to the hon. Gentleman's argument. As he knows and as the House knows, I have to take into account all the factors set out in the order. I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the


provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

VANUATU

Mr. Christopher Price: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation in Vanuatu, formerly the New Hebrides.
This is a serious application. It concerns a subject that I have now been raising in the House for well over a year. The situation in Vanuatu is now more serious than it has ever been. It is important, because the House was misled on 24 July by the Minister of State when he said:
British and French troops, acting together, carried out an operation to restore the authority of legitimate Government on the island of Santo, thus putting an end to the eight-week rebellion. The operation appears so far to have been a complete success."—[Official Report, 24 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 801.]
We know that the operation was almost a complete failure and that the Royal Marines have taken no action of any sort to preserve the integrity of the newly independent country of Vanuatu. It is especially urgent in view of the news this week that there has been a landing of a large quantity of automatic weapons on the island, almost certainly by American interests, in league with the French residents on Vanuatu and with Jimmy Stevens, that are intent on disrupting the territorial integrity of Vanuatu. The matter is particularly urgent because the British soldiers who are stationed on the island failed completely to prevent this disruption of this newly independent Commonwealth country.
It is important that we have a debate on this matter, because there is a real danger that the military conflict that is about to grow on the island of Santo will be one between British and French soldiers. The French are there to protect their citizens, many of whom are actively backing the rebel regime, and the Royal Marines are there to protect the integrity of the new Commonwealth country of Vanuatu. There is a real danger that the conflict will worsen.
It is for those reasons that I beg leave to have a debate on the issue, so that the Minister may tell us what the present situation is and give us an assurance that the British troops will remain there as long as the French troops to carry out our obligations to this newly independent Commonwealth country that desperately needs our help.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation in Vanuatu, formerly the New Hebrides.
I listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I have to rule that his application does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

WINDSCALE (RADIOACTIVE LEAKAGE)

Mr. Cryer: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the report of the Health and Safety Executive on the leakage of radioactive liquid into the ground of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, Wind-scale, 15 March 1979.
The matter is important, because health and safety matters are rarely debated in the House. They are of great importance, because many more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action and industrial action. However, the Government have wasted many hours of parliamentary time with legislation on industrial injury.
The matter is urgent, because the House should debate the issues that are raised in the report on the procedures, methods and lack of safety that led to radioactive contamination of a level that would have killed anyone who had been placed in the soil that was contaminated.
The matter is urgent, because we have a Government who are hell-bent on embarking on a programme of 10 fast-breeder reactors with a Nuclear Installations Inspectorate that is below strength


because of Government cuts in health and safety expenditure as well as other expenditure.
The matter is important and urgent, because we want to ensure that we do not have, through laxity or failure to meet standards, a Three-Mile Island incident in Britain. It behoves Parliament to ensure that the report does not, like many other health and safety reports, merely gather dust without any debate.
Parliament would seem to be prepared to debate such urgent and important matters only when a grave accident occurs, with consequent loss of life and limb. Radioactivity is a serious issue. The House should discuss it, so that suitable publicity can be given and remedial action can be taken. In particular, the Health and Safety Executive appears to be so complacent that no prosecutions are being undertaken.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the report of the Health and Safety Executive on the leakage of radioactive liquid into the ground of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, Wind-scale, 1 March 1979.
As the House knows, I do not decide whether these matters are discussed. I merely decide whether they are to be discussed tonight or tomorrow night. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and the whole House is aware of that. However, I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION v. GRANADA TELEVISION

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) wish to make the same application as I rejected two or three days ago?

Mr. Greville Janner: I do, Mr. Speaker, because there have been a series of new events.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing

Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the danger to the freedom of the press due to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of the British Steel Corporation v. Granada.
The matter is urgent, because it has been reported today that Granada cannot comply with the ruling that the House of Lords gave last week. It cannot name the British Steel Corporation employee who leaked BSC's confidential documents.
Since your previous ruling, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated that the Law Commission's report—which had been expected by the end of the year—will have to be reconsidered. Indeed, the report may not appear until later. In addition, since your ruling, the Attorney-General has stated that the House of Lords will not give reasons for its sad judgment until the next Session. In the meantime the vacation court will sit. The journalists involved, those who employ them, and other journalists, are at grave risk.
The matter is both urgent and important. I had no hesitation about renewing my application under Standing Order No. 9. If we were to have a debate the House could emphasise to the British Steel Corporation that, despite the judgment of the House of Lords, the matter should not be pressed further and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is advancing the argument that he would advance if I were to grant him the Adjournment.

Mr. Janner: I shall conclude immediately. The matter is urgent, because the court that sits during the vacation will have to consider what to do with any application. In addition, it is important that the House should have an opportunity to express its views to the court. I hope that all hon. Members agree that courts should act as though legislation were pending and should treat journalists as being unable to comply with such a ruling in private matters.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would ask leave to move the


Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the danger to the freedom of the press due to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of the British Steel Corporation v. Granada.
I listened with concern to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

MOTOR CYCLE CRASH HELMETS (SECULAR PRINCIPLES OBJECTION)

Sir Ronald Bell, supported by Mr. Ivan Lawrence, presented a Bill to exempt certain persons having objections of principle to compulsion in the matter of wearing motor cycle crash helmets from the provisions of section 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1972: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has just witnessed a novel use of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. Do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would be desirable to refer such a flatter to the new Committee on procedure, once it has been set up?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to argue about that. I do not refer matters to the Committee on procedure. It is usually the House that refers such matters to it.

HOUSING LEGISLATION (ELDERLY PERSONS' HOMES)

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood from the Leader of the House that the Secretary of State for the Environment would make a statement on the progress that he hopes to make and on the changes that he will make to the Housing Bill. It would be convenient to have that statement now.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will be aware that Lords amendments

to the Housing Bill are tabled for consideration later today. They will significantly widen the exclusions from the right to buy. Not only will sheltered properties be excluded; in addition, those properties designed or specially adapted for old people will be excluded.
The Government have considered the amendments and have decided to widen the exclusions so that genuine elderly persons' accommodation is excluded. We shall accordingly invite the House—with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House—to consider a manuscript amendment to that effect.

Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Most of us wish to make progress. It would help if the Secretary of State were to state clearly and categorically that the Government will no longer pursue the sale of those properties that are specifically designed for the use of, and occupation by, the elderly. Will he confirm that the will of the House of Lords is to be endorsed, on the Government's advice?
Secondly, will he confirm the statement made by the Leader of the House, namely, that that which applies in England should apply to Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will apply to Scotland? Will he also confirm that a suitable measure will be brought forward to ensure that this substantial concession applies to Scotland as well as to England?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for the views of their Lordships. I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's second question first. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has authorised me to say, as regards the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill, that he will facilitate legislation to make a change along the lines that I have announced, at the earliest convenient moment.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is standing. He is not saying anything. Does he wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to comment on this very important statement. Concessions have been wrung out of the Government at a very late


stage in the Session. I believe that those concessions could well have been improved upon. I hope that the Tory Government—especially Tarzan himself—understands that the House has ways and means of trying to extract such concessions. It is possible to do that without a parliamentary majority. The events of the past 24 hours demonstrate that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Cabinet understand that if the next Session lasts its full course, similar ventures may take place in order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has strayed far from the original point of order.

Mr. Heseltine: I warmly support the concept that the rule of law and supremacy of Parliament should be supreme in this country. I am sure that the House will have welcomed the hon. Gentleman's clarification of his position.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of my colleagues, I wish to make clear that as chairman of the Back-bench Labour Party environment group I was consulted about this arrangement as were as many other hon. Members as possible in the time. May I ask the Secretary of State through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he will make any concession in relation to houses in rural areas? The Select Committee on the environment wrote to him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That subject can wait until the debate has commenced. We should not go too far now.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I thank the Minister, and more particularly my right hon. and hon. Friends, for forcing this concession out of the Government? No doubt they would also thank the Back Benchers who gave such able support.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank the Secretary of State very warmly for this concession, which will mean a great deal to a number of councils, including that of Lancaster.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Berwick and East

Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and then I shall call the Minister.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Secretary of State has just made a statement on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the effect that a similar amendment will be inserted in the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. Will he confirm that "the earliest possible opportunity" will be tomorrow, and not a later date?

Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not technically possible to amend the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill. There is no opportunity to do so within the broad rules of order. However, it would be the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to seek the earliest opportunity to introduce separate legislation for this purpose. I ask the House to understand that this is the only constitutional way in which we can proceed.

Mr. Straw: Since the Secretary of State for Scotland has a discretion as to when parts of the Tenants' Rights (Scotland) Bill will come into force, will the Secretary of State for the Environment, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, give an undertaking that the "right to buy" provision in Scotland will not come into force until such date as any amending legislation is through the House?

Mr. Heseltine: Obviously, I cannot anticipate the debate that my right hon. Friend will conduct at a later time. I ask the House to pursue these matters with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that the only way in which the Scottish legislation can be amended is by a new instrument, but I think that the House would agree that it would be wholly unreasonable if the Government promised to prohibit, or at least not enforce, the sale of old people's dwellings in Scotland as soon as they had legislative time, but then allowed these dwellings to be sold in large numbers throughout the summer. We need an assurance that the Government's intention will be honoured in the spirit and the letter and that the Secretary of State will not give any authority for the sale of


property which will not be compulsorily sold when the new Bill is brought to the House.

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot help the right hon. Member completely but I can help him to the extent that neither of the two Bills dealing with housing and the right to buy comes into effect in the summer. They will not come into effect until two months after they have been enacted.

HOUSING BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Stanley, to move the allocation of time motion.

Mr. William Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If this is a point of order, it will come out of the time for the allocation of time debate.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to express a view on the Scottish matter. A Government Minister from Scotland is sitting on the Front Bench and it is quite intolerable for the Secretary of State for the Environment to speak on behalf of the Scots when they have a Minister here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member may be able to make that point in the debate that will follow. It is not a point of order on which I can rule. It is possible for the hon. Member to raise it on the motion.

Mr. Hamilton: I was simply asking whether the Scottish Office had applied to you, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement to this effect, instead of delegating it to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have called the Minister and you have said that points of order will come out of the time for the guillotine motion, which will take one hour. The Minister rose at 6.2 p.m. The Order Paper today on page 5396—No. 2 Order of the Day—states:
HOUSING BILL [Allotted Day]: Consideration of Lords Amendments.
Just above the sentence in bold type it says:
If the Motion (Housing Bill (Allocation of Time)) is agreed to:—At the conclusion of the Proceedings of the Housing Bill …
then we shall have the proceedings on the Eastbourne Harbour Docks Bill. Does that mean that if the motion is not agreed to by 7 pm—and the Minister rose with only 58 minutes to go—at 7 pm opposed Private Business must be taken? Surely this sentence cannot be put into operation,


because the motion will not be agreed by 7 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: According to our Standing Orders, Private Business is taken at the end of the Bill which is subject to the guillotine motion. I believe that that is made clear on the Order Paper—that it will come at the end of the discussion on the Bill.

Mr. Rooker: That is my understanding from the front page of the Order Paper, but that seems to contradict the statement that the guillotine motion must be agreed to before 7 pm. If it is agreed to by 7 o'clock the Private Business is put back till the end of the day. The word "if" is there. If it were not, I would not be raising this point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The original order covers it. It is very long but I shall read it. Paragraph 8 says:
Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon Members realise that they are taking time out of the debate on this motion. We have started the debate on the timetable motion.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for further clarification. It seems to me that if we have agreed a motion for a guillotine, Private Business is not taken at 7 o'clock but at the end of the business that is covered by the guillotine. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has raised a different question. If 7 o'clock arrives and at that stage we have not agreed the motion for the guillotine, we then have no motion for a guillotine, so what is there in the Standing Orders to prevent the business set down for 7 o'clock being called then?

Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in suggesting that today cannot be an allotted day within the guillotine motion of 16 April until it has been so allotted by the House? That cannot be so until the House has decided the guillotine motion.

Mr. Speaker: It is an allotted day. It is on the Order Paper. That is the answer to both hon. Gentlemen.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order of the House [16th April] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16th April, each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE


Proceedings


Lords Amendments
Time for Conclusion


Nos. 1 to 116
9 p.m.


Nos. 117 to 145
10.30 p.m.


Nos. 146 to 251
midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after 10 o'clock.

3. For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i)put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii)put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;


(iii)put forthwith with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv)put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve Questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House

under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion—[Mr. Stanley.]

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): The Housing Bill that we have been considering for more than six months is perhaps as far-reaching and as comprehensive a housing measure as has come before the House in the post-war period. On this side of the House we look forward to its early enactment. I do not think that anyone can reasonably deny that the Bill has been debated at great length—both in the House and in another place.
A total of 167 hours was spent debating the Bill in this House before it went to another place. Of that time, 139 hours were spent in Committee, covering 46 Committee sittings spanning over three months. In another place there has been further detailed consideration of the Bill over a period of another 58½ hours. To date, therefore, both Houses have spent a total of 225½ hours discussing the Bill.
I do not believe that there are any substantive provisions that have not already been discussed at some length. Indeed, there are some provisions that may have been debated as many as seven times—on Second Reading, Committee and Report in this House, and then on Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading debate with amendments in another place.
The Opposition may no doubt refer to the number of Lords amendments for consideration by this House. The numerical total is 251, but it would be highly misleading to do what the Opposition may be tempted to do, namely, to argue against this motion by reference to the number of amendments passed in another place. Of the 251, a considerable number, 143 in all, are of a minor, technical or drafting nature.
The remaining 108 amendments can be said to relate to substantive issues, but that total includes all the consequential or drafting amendments relating to those issues. The majority of the substantive amendments have, in fact, been made to meet the points put


by hon. Members on both sides of the House and also to meet points put by bodies outside the House.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I am interested to learn of the reports that have been discussed. The Minister will recall that on a number of occasions the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) and myself have raised the issue of houses in multiple occupation. We were given to understand that a survey was being carried out in conjunction with local authorities and the Department and that a report would be produced outlining some of the conditions, such as fire precautions. On a number of occasions, both in the Chamber and in written answers, the Minister said that that report would be made available before the end of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. Can he tell me where I can obtain a copy of that report, so that even at this late stage I can consider it and be in a position to discuss it on the relevant part of the Bill? If it is not available, when will it be?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman refers to exactly what I said he will see that it was to the effect that it was our intention to try to make that report available before the proceedings on the legislation was concluded. Unfortunately, that has not been possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows probably as well as any hon. Member, some extremely difficult and complex issues are involved. As I think he is also aware, as a result of representations that he and some of my hon. Friends have made, we have made significant progress on the legislation governing houses in multiple occupation.
We have moved amendments to meet points made by a great variety of outside bodies—the local authority associations, the Building Societies Association, the Law Society, the Federation of Private Residents Associations and the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies, among others.
The Opposition may try to make the point that it does not say too much for the Bill as originally drafted that we had to take so much account of representations made by outside bodies. However, if the right hon. Member for Birmingham,

Sparkbrook, (Mr. Hattersley) in particular seeks to make that point, I put it to him that had he been more responsive to the representations made by people both inside and outside the House, some of the legislation for which he was responsible would have been mightily improved.
We have introduced amendments to meet in whole, or at least in part, points made by many Members on both sides, in both Houses. We have met some of the points made by the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) and St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Anglesey (Mr. Best) and Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on matters relating to hostels. We have also brought forward amendments to meet an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) on successor children, under the right to buy.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) made an important point relating to rental purchase. Points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) on rural areas.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As it seems possible that we shall not reach a debate on those amendments, I should like to register my appreciation, on behalf of my constituents and a large number of victims of these people in the North of England, for the amendments that the Government have tabled. They do not cover the whole problem but they represent a valuable safeguard for those affected. I would not like the Bill to proceed without registering my thanks to the Minister for what he has done.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge the fact that, had it not been for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman raised that problem in regard to his own constituency, it would not have been drawn to our attention in the way that it was. Therefore, the fact that we have brought these amendments forward relates directly to the action that he took on behalf of his constituents.
We have also brought forward important amendments that were asked for by the right hon. Member for Ardwick and


my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) on the application of the two-thirds rateable value rule under the Rent Act. Points were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), Chelsea (Mr. Scott), Paddington (Mr. Wheeler), St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) and Fulham (Mr Stevens) on service charges. Points were also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), together with Lord Banks in another place, on option mortgages for the elderly, where we have made an amendment which I believe commands widespread support on both sides of the House. Another amendment was moved in another place by Lord Greenwood and Lord Selkirk on home ownership for Service men. That shows that throughout this legislation we have endeavoured to make a reasoned and sensible response to sound cases for amending the Bill.
That means that the House now faces a considerable number of amendments that have been brought forward from another place. If the Opposition want to argue against the motion on the grounds that there are too many amendments, my reply must be that the Government could have taken up quite a different stance. They could have closed their ears to all the representations that have been made and paid not one jot or tittle of attention to them. In that event, the Housing Bill would have returned to this House with far fewer amendments than 251. Indeed, it might have come back with precisely five amendments, namely, the five on which the Government were defeated in another place.
Had that occurred, and had the Government brought the Bill back with precisely five amendments to it, I have a pretty good idea what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would have said. I am certain that he would have castigated the Government for not bringing forward enough amendments. He would have said that it was outrageous that the Government had not accepted more of the amendments that were tabled in another place. I am sure that if there were only five Lords amendments on the Amendment Paper he would still oppose the motion on the ground that the Opposition

needed more time to persuade us to accept more amendments.

Mr. Jack Straw: The Minister should not stretch that point too far. Surely the truth is that the vast majority of amendments have been tabled by the Government in order to amend their poor drafting.

Mr. Stanley: I recall several amendments designed to deal with drafting errors in the previous Government's housing legislation, which they had lost sight of. In any event, a considerable number of the amendments that have been brought forward are in response to points made on both sides in both Houses.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I accept that there have been drafting errors in previous legislation. Does the Minister accept that the majority of errors that have occurred have resulted from the introduction in the Lords of amendments at a late stage—the Rent Act 1974 was a supreme example—which were not properly examined by the House? Does he agree that we should learn the lesson from our past mistakes and ensure that, in future, rather than coming back to the House with a 42-page Bill to be debated in six hours, we should refer Lords amendments back to a Committee so that they can be properly discussed?

Mr. Stanley: I do not want to trespass onto questions of procedure. However, I believe that the course of the Bill underlines the Government's position and their attitude towards the other House, which is certainly not the position that has been adopted by the Labour Party.
If the Opposition wish to argue that a large number of these amendments are, in fact, controversial, that is hardly borne out by the proceedings that have taken place in another place. Of the 246 Government amendments that were tabled in another place, the number against which the Opposition divided was exactly zero. That does not suggest that we are bringing forward a large number of controversial amendments. I accept that not every amendment is entirely free from controversy, and there are the five amendments to which the Government have tabled motions to disagree. One of those—the one to extend option mortgage arrangements to annuities bought by the


elderly—is purely a technical disagreement to enable us to rectify the drafting of an amendment that we have already made clear we are accepting. We are left, therefore, with just the four right-to-buy amendments, with which we disagree. We shall table a further amendment to one of them in lieu.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I have no doubt that the Minister regards have no doubt that the Minister regards the concession that has been made this afternoon as tremendously important. I do not. It involves 200,000 houses out of a total of 6 million. I wanted the whole Bill to be postponed for three months. The Minister and his hon. Friends, one of whom appeared on television last night, said that that would deny tenants the right to buy. That is misrepresentation. What is really happening is that councils are being compelled to sell even if they do not want to. That puts a different emphasis on the situation.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has been following our proceeding closely. The only interpretation of the legislation is that we are doing that which we promised—to give a legal right to buy to 6 million council tenants.
Each of the four right-to-buy amendments has been debated extensively already. We have endeavoured to arrange the timetable motion to give the House the opportunity to debate these subjects today. However, in Committee and on Report, in both Houses, apart from the time spent in the Second Reading debates, the issue of dwellings for the elderly has been debated for three and a quarter hours, the rural areas for seven and three quarter hours, the option provisions for five hours, and the Secretary of State's intervention powers for five and a half hours. The four right-to-buy amendments have been debated extensively already in both Houses. In the circumstances, the timetable motion, with the extension to midnight, provides reasonable time for the consideration of Lords amendments.
Whatever view is taken in the House, I am sure that the thousands of tenants who are anxiously waiting for the right to buy their homes will agree that the time provided is ample.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there has been considerable anxiety in the past few days about this matter? I spent most of the morning answering telephone calls from constituents who are deeply anxious and who will be most relieved if and when the House chooses to approve the guillotine motion.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that his view is shared by many thousands of council tenants. I am sure that it will be shared by the many hundreds of Birmingham tenants who were in the process of buying their homes, only to be stopped last May. I am sure that it will be the view of the hundreds of Manchester tenants who were in the process of buying their homes when they were stopped by a change in control in 1971 and had to fight their way through the courts for eight years. Such tenants, and thousands like them, have been waiting for the Bill for 15 months with increasing impatience. I hope that the House will agree that they should not have to wait any longer.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: It would be ungracious of me not to respond to the concern expressed for the tenants of Birmingham by the Minister. If he visited the Spark-brook division and the great housing estates at Foxholes and Acocks Green, he would obtain a clear picture of what the tenants think of the Government in general. I should be delighted to take him round the estates while he discusses these matters with the tenants.
I am in a benevolent mood, matters having turned out as they have, and I shall give the Minister credit since he wrote his speech before the Government made their major concession of which he seemed to be unaware. When we debated the timetable motion on the Report stage I said that I was not attracted to the normal rituals of guillotine debates. That is still my view. However, today's debate, by any standards, cannot be called a normal guillotine debate. The facts and figures speak for themselves.
The House of Lords spent eight days considering and amending the Bill. Initially, the Government offered the


House of Commons eight hours to consider what it took the Lords eight days to consider. In fact, the period will be substantially shorter. No reasonable person will argue that eight hours or less is adequate time to decide whether their Lordships were right in the considerations which took them eight full days.
In the House of Lords 255 amendments were carried. The Minister said that the figure was 251 because he did not separate amendments with the same number but with different letters. I understand that that was a genuine error and I forgive him. Two new schedules and 11 new clauses were passed. Even allowing for the full day which it is charitable to assume that the Government felt would be devoted to these matters, we would have been allowed two minutes' discussion per amendment in the House of Commons.
Hon. Members will argue that that is a bogus time because amendments and new clauses are grouped together. The provisional selection offered the House 79 separate debates which, had the debate today begun at 3.30, would have given us six minutes per group of amendments. It would not have given us time to vote on each group, nor to debate each group. The Government would have hardly had time to describe each group.
I hope that the Minister and the Leader of the House have learnt one or two lessons in the last couple of days. They must realise that it is not for them to tell the House what is an important issue and what is not. Perhaps 243 amendments would be judged by hon. Members on both sides of the House to be of no great significance. However, that is for the House to decide. It is an unacceptable use of the Government's power for them to decide that certain amendments are unimportant and to decree that the House should not have the opportunity to make its own judgment and have its own discussions. That is for the House of Commons to decide. It has not been allowed that proper courtesy and right.
Why are we in the present position? Part of the reason is the Government's incompetence, although the Minister tried to pass over that with a blandness which is new to him. It is no good his saying that the Government could have

rejected every amendment made in the House of Lords. If the Bill had come here unamended, large parts of it would have been unworkable. I suppose that the Government, hell-bent on getting the Bill through, might have been sufficiently wrongheaded to turn down the corrective amendments which they moved themselves. Many of the amendments are necessary because of the Government's incompetence.
That incompetence was demonstrated dramatically by the Minister of State last Wednesday. The Minister of State is not the type of performer that we expect to stop the show, but he managed to stop the House of Lords for half an hour a week ago by making an announcement which has been gainsaid by the Government. It was typical and indicative of the incompetence with which the Bill has been pursued.
The Bill was debated in the House of Commons Standing Committee for 136 hours or 46 sittings. Yet it was so deficient, and remains so deficient, that literally dozens of technical amendments had to be moved in the House of Lords. It may be that most are no more than corrections of errors that a competent Government would have discovered earlier. However, I repeat that it is for this House to decide whether they are matters of substance. It is a denial of our right not to be given time to make that judgment.
Why are we being required to dispose in an afternoon and evening of what it took their Lordships eight days to deal with? The answer is in three parts. I want to explain why the Government have forced themselves into a humiliating position over the past three days and why a major concession has been granted at the last minute, much to my pleasure, but in a way that does the Government no credit and reveals that the Leader of the House is the most incompetent man to occupy that office for a long time.
One reason is the strange and dangerous psychology of the Prime Minister, who is never prepared to be seen to change her mind, especially when she is wrong. Time after time the Government are required to plough off the straight furrow, irrespective of whether they are proceeding in a manner that will do


them, the Commons and the country great damage. However, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis): when Labour Back Bench Members demonstrated that they would not have it, the Prime Minister at least saw sense on one issue.
The second reason why we have been rushed along in this wholly unacceptable way is the arrogance of the Leader of the House. Over this, as over so many other matters, he has not behaved as a Leader of the House, protecting our rights to debate issues in the proper way. He has behaved as a functionary of the Conservative Party. I warn him, and I hope that his hon. Friend will draw my warning to his attention, that the more he pursues the narrow party line while occupying the great office that he does, the more he is bound to face more difficulties of the sort that he encountered on Monday and today. When he starts behaving like a Leader of the House, we shall make more progress.
It is not only the Prime Minister's obduracy or the incompetence and arrogance of the Leader of the House that has led to the House being rushed. The third reason is the ambition of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Smiling in that simpering way that he has, the Leader of the House said that the Bill would now be passed in time for the Conservative Party conference. Pressure is being put on us in order that the customary ovation for the Secretary of State can be enhanced by his announcement that the Housing Bill has passed into law. That is why Conservative Members will have only six days in which to prepare to shoot whatever they shoot on 12 August. That is why holidays have been abandoned, pairs have been broken, yesterday's business was lost and we shall stay up late tonight. It is in order to further the most carefully contrived and long-winded ovation that even the Conservative Party has ever known.
I leave the Government with this thought. Having obtained a major concession, we look forward to voting against those Government propositions to which we take the strongest objection in principle.
We shall go through the evening and the night sustained by the thought that we are voting for principles. Conservative Members will be voting for the Secretary of State's ambition. I wish them well with it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have two important points to make. First, the Shadow spokesman has accused others of attributes that many would attach to him. He accuses my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of not changing her mind. He is not willing to change his mind so that ordinary working people can have the chance to buy their homes. About 30 per cent. of my constituents will not have the opportunity to buy homes unless the Bill becomes law. The local authority, allegedly representing ordinary people, considers that they should not have that chance. They are told that they should look for homes on the private market, which in most cases would mean leaving the constituency. Over the past 25 years the average rate of owner-occupation has doubled, but that is not true in my constituency, where a great many homes are owned by the local authority. Unless the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) believes that those people must always be council tenants, whatever the general pattern of owner-occupation, he should change his mind.

Mr. Frank Allaun: If the hon. Gentleman wants ordinary working people in his constituency to buy their houses, why does he not tell them that there is plenty of private housing available? They should buy those houses instead of buying property that is desperately needed by people who cannot afford to buy houses, even with the aid of a mortgage.

Mr. Bottomley: I do not know how familiar the hon. Gentleman is with my constituency, but it contains many empty public sector houses because of the difficulty experienced by one local authority in managing so many homes. As a result there is more friction than if there was ordinary marketing.
The right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of arrogance. However, the right hon. Gentleman is arrogant to suggest that


people who want the chance to own their homes should not have it. I own my home, or at least that part of it which is not owned by the building society, and I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman owns his. Many people have not had the opportunity to buy a flat or small house to begin with and to move as they changed jobs. We are not here to represent only those who own their homes. We should try to make it possible for more people, especially young people, to own homes. We should give those who moved into a council house when they first got married the opportunity to own homes.
The right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment of ambition. We all have ambitions. My ambition is not to become Secretary of State for the Environment in a Labour Government or leader of the Labour Party. It is that more people should have the opportunity to own homes. The right hon. Gentleman and his party fail to understand the ambitions of those they represent. If he believes that so many people want to buy their homes, why does he not give them a chance to do so? Alternatively, if he believes that only a few would take advantage of the opportunity, why does he oppose the proposals?

Mr. Allen McKay: Has the hon. Gentleman considered cases where Labour-controlled local authorities went to the electorate on not selling houses, because they did not consider that there was a need, and were returned with an overwhelming majority?

Mr. Bottomley: I believe that there is a tendency for local authority elections to be influenced by the party in power. Over the past 20 years there have been massive swings in local elections away from the party in power. It is misleading to claim that a single item of policy makes an enormous difference. In my constituency many people who would normally vote Labour have made it plain that they want the chance to buy their homes.
If Labour Members think that because people, by chance, could not get their own homes when they were young and managed to get a council house, they should be left in servitude to the local authority, not sharing in the distribution

of wealth that has been argued for by many Labour Members and not being as mobile as those who own their own homes, they have got things the wrong way round.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency which is similar to my own. When his constituents say that they want to buy their own homes, does he explain to them that the easiest way for them to do that would be for the Government to give them a large deposit, to reduce interest rates, so that buyers could afford mortgages, reduce inflation—instead of doubling it—sand reduce VAT, so that purchasers would have more money in their pockets to pay for a mortgage? Those actions would help all his constituents to buy their homes, but the Government have done the reverse of all those actions.

Mr. Bottomley: My constituents cannot all buy their houses while 30 per cent. of properties remain in the ownership of the local authority.
Some Labour Members argue that only the more desirable council homes will be purchased.

Mr. Frank Allaun: That is correct.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has got it wrong. Many people do not manage to get a council house or choose to buy small flats that may be in worse condition than those owned by local authorities. Most of those people do not continue to live in their inexpensive or less desirable flat or house, but do it up—which helps to regenerate run-down areas—and it represents their first rung on the housing ladder. They have mobility and they have had the opportunity to put their money into what matters to them rather than into other areas of expenditure.
Many council tenants of what appear to be less desirable flats and houses would be well advised to buy those properties. If the council homes are as undesirable as many Labour Members suggest, what sort of housing system have we had that has condemned so many to live in sub-standard housing? Secondly, can we not learn from what has happened in many parts of the country where ordinary working people have


had the opportunity of doing up their homes, have enjoyed living there and, because of the value that they have added to the properties, have been able to sell at a better price?

Mr. George Grant: The hon. Gentleman may think that he is presenting a reasonable case, but he is missing the point of the argument. If the Bill goes through and meets all the requirement that he is asking for, and council houses are sold—and, because of high mortgage rates, houses are being taken off the market—what will happen to the multitude who cannot afford to buy their own homes? There will be no council houses for them.

Mr. Bottomley: If I were to answer that intervention, I would go back over all the arguments that we have had previously. The arguments that I am putting forward have not been put forward in this way before.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Does my hon. Friend agree that as we have given security of tenure to council tenants, they can stay in their homes for the rest of their lives, so the properties would not become vacant anyway?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has made the point which I thought had been made often enough for me not to offer it to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant).
I am prepared to stay here right through the night and, if necessary, to come back next week, because I regard the extension of home ownership to council tenants as one of the most important aspects of policy, towards which there ought to be a bipartisan approach. Only Labour Members' ambition, arrogance and refusal to change their minds have stopped the proposal going through in that way as an important part of social legislation. It is as important as the Education Acts and the introduction of old-age pensions, and it will be as important as the increase in child benefits which I hope we shall see in the future.

Mr. Jack Straw: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley is said to be one of the

leading wets in the Tory Party. Having listened to his speech, I feel as though I have walked through a lukewarm shower. It is not convincing for the hon. Gentleman to bleed his heart for ordinary working people when he has walked through the Lobbies with his hon. Friends in support of policies that are making hundreds of thousands of ordinary people unemployed so that they have no chance of buying their home, whether they live in private rented accommodation or council housing.
The Bill is not only irrelevant to the housing needs of the nation but is supremely damaging to them. It is so damaging that not even this Government could convince another place, which has an overwhelming number of their own supporters, on certain major aspects. Not once or twice but five times the Government were defeated because of defections among their own supporters.
It is astonishing that the Government, who, we have been told, are so attached to another place, should have acted in such an arrogant way towards the institution which they hold so venerable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) will recall that it was not long ago that the Secretary of State for the Environment, when he was Opposition spokesman on aircraft and shipbuilding, was beating the Labour Party over the head for daring to disagree with another place. He said:
The Government cannot have it both ways. They either believe in the reforming ability of a second Chamber as they presumably intended in their Parliamentary Act 1949, or they do not. They cannot have a reforming second Chamber and then criticise it when it scrutinises legislation from this House."—[Official Report, 8 November 1976; Vol. 919 c. 99.]
The Secretary of State not only criticised another place when it started to scrutinise his legislation; he slapped it in the face.
The Leader of the House, who has conducted our proceedings with such skill in the past week, said during the election campaign:
A unicameral legislature constitutes a giant step towards tyranny, yet it is precisely this which is proposed by the Labour Party.
One of the good things to come out of this fiasco is that the Government have turned their noses up at another place and hastened its abolition. Let us be clear


that the victory achieved today is partly a victory for Labour and cross-bench Peers—to whom I give credit—but mainly a victory for the Opposition in this place. It would not have been possible but for the log jam of business that the Government created and the tactics of the Opposition in forcing the Government to concede. Anyone who doubts that should look at the Amendment Paper and note that time and again the Secretary of State is asking this House to disagree with Lords amendments. The Government have had to stand on their heads because of pressure from the House.
The second reason why this is a humiliating day for the Government is that time and again in Committee they rejected our pleas on the need to amend the Bill in order to prevent tens of thousands of dwellings used for old people from being sold on the private market and no longer being available for old people. The result would have been to force those old people into NHS hospitals, many of them old workhouses, or to put additional pressure on social service homes.
We argued with the Government time and again, but they turned us down. They turned down the arguments in another place, but, because of the chaos that they have produced and the pressure that they were under, they have had to eat their words, stand on their head and accept what they have spent five months objecting to.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon Friend agree that it is the utmost hypocrisy for Conservative Members to claim that they are trying to establish the right of tenants to buy their homes? If that is the principle involved, why is it that all attempts to persuade the Government to extend it to private tenants have been refused? We can only reach the conclusion that it is a vendetta against the rented public sector. It has nothing to do with the rights of owner-occupation.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are only too delighted to sell public assets on the cheap, while carefully defending the rights of private property owners.
More time should be made available to debate the matter, not only because of the items on the Order Paper, but

because there are many important matters relating to shorthold tenancy that should be discussed. In Committee we asked the Government why the survey of empty houses in England had not been produced. Question after question was turned down with the promise that, at some stage, the survey commissioned in 1977 would be produced. That has finally happened. I am not surprised that the Minister sat on it for so long. It explodes the idea that there are vast numbers of empty properties waiting to come on to the market when shorthold comes into force. It states that the numbers of empty properties have been consistently overestimated, and that the number of empty properties empty because of the Rent Acts is, at the maximum, 41,000. If shorthold does not work, it will not be because of the Labour Party's promise to repeal the legislation, but because the property is not available.
On 15 January the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) described the Secretary of State for the Environment as the gauleiter of housing.

Mr. W. Benyon: The hon. Gentleman is always selective in his quotations. He should have continued the quotation by reminding the House that I said that the next gauleiter might be a commissar.

Mr. Straw: That is right. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman said that. He said that it was all very well for the Secretary of State to set himself up as the gauleiter of housing but that the next gauleiter might be a commissar. That worried the hon. Gentleman, and he refused to vote in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. The Secretary of State is destroying basic principles of constitutional relationship between the local authorities and the Government. Labour Secretaries of State may be tempted to use the powers which the present Secretary of State has taken unto himself for other purposes. I do not think that that temptation will come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley, who will be the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. He is a man of the utmost principle. But it is conceivable that others with fewer scruples about the needs of local government will occupy that seat, even from the Labour Benches, and that those powers will be used.
Nothing in the course of the proceedings on the Housing Bill during the past seven sorry months has undermined the hon. Member for Buckingham's description of the Secretary of State as a gauleiter—for gauleiter he is and gauleiter he has been. He has jackbooted his way through the housing needs of the nation. He has jackbooted his way not only through the House of Lords but through the House of Commons.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on his success in eliciting from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) his description of the Secretary of State. Whenever we repeated that description in Committee we drew rebukes as though it was our invention. I am glad that the original author has acknowledged his paternity of that remark.
In its election manifesto last year the Conservative Party gave prominence to a section headed "The Supremacy of Parliament". It stated:
the traditional role of our legislature has suffered badly from the growth of government over the last quarter of a century.
We will see that Parliament and no other body stands at the centre of the nation's life and decisions, and we will seek to make it effective in its job of controlling the Executive.
Of all the many broken pledges in that manifesto, none has been more cynically betrayed than that.
Let us consider the extraordinary progress of the Housing Bill through Parliament. It was introduced last December, seven months after the election. When it first appeared in the Vote Office it consisted of 129 clauses and 20 schedules, covering 142 pages—a modest measure costing £3.50. The Secretary of State and the Minister clearly felt that it was far too modest: if they were to make their names as legistlators, they would have to do better than that.
In Committee they increased the number of clauses from 129 to 136, the number of schedules from 20 to 22, and the number of pages from 142 to 156. They raised the price from £3.50 to £4.50. For the Ministers the Bill had become not simply an embryonic statute, but a way of life. On Report the Government added another eight clauses, two

schedules and 11 pages, and they raised the price to £5.
In a moment of rapture they realised that they need not stop there. It dawned on them that we have a bicameral legislature, and that the Bill's transit to the House of Lords opened up a whole new world. With a whoop of glee they added a further six clauses and one schedule at the Lords Committee stage, and another four clauses and one schedule on Report there. The original 129 clauses had multiplied to 154, and the 20 schedules to 26. At the last count, with final returns not yet available, the length of the Bill had increased by 27 per cent. and its price by 43 per cent.—higher even than the rate of inflation under this Government.
That does not take amendments into account. Last week I tabled a question to the Minister asking how many Government amendments had been made to the Bill. He went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that I received his answer, even to the extent of sending it to my flat in Manchester. I am grateful to him for taking that trouble, but his answer was that he did not really know. He said:
There is no easy way of providing the analysis nor, to avoid disproportionate cost, has a detailed check of the analysis been made.
The Minister has tabled so many amendments that he has lost count of them. His estimate—and it was only an estimate—was that 159 amendments were tabled in Committee, and 100 on Report. In addition, 99 were tabled in Committee in another place, 87 on Report, and 48 on Third Reading, making a grand total of 493 Government amendments in addition to the extra clauses and schedules.
The Ministers have amendments in the way that dogs have fleas. Their slogan is "If it moves, amend it". Today the House is having to pay the price of their legislative incontinence. We are being asked to absorb, deal with and, in some cases, dispose of or reject 255 amendments in a few hours. There was to be another new clause, but its has been withdrawn.
I draw attention to the fact that the Leader of the House has not troubled to be present during the debate. He and the Secretary of State are turning this House into a mincing machine. They are making a mockery of the parliamentary


process. Yet it was they, in their manifesto, who promised that they would
see that Parliament and no other body stands at the centre of the nation's life and decisions
and that they would
seek to make it effective in its job of controlling the Executive.
Four years ago in this Chamber the Secretary of State, sitting in the position which I have been occupying with my right hon. Friends today, achieved notoriety by rising, seizing the Mace and brandishing it. Today he is degrading it more than he did on that night, because he is dragging it into the mire by asking Parliament to deal with 255 amendments, in 79 groups, in this minimal time—an average of five minutes per group of amendments, provided that there are no Divisions.
The Leader of the House and the Secretary of State and his colleagues are treating Parliament with contempt. Their puppet majority will provide their guillotine in a minute's time, but their majority will not eradicate the stain of what they have done to the reputation of parliamentary government. When a Labour Government return to office, we shall repeal the unacceptable parts of this Bill.

Division No. 446]
AYES
[7.02 pm


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nick
Farr, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Bulmer, Esmond
Fell, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Hon Adam
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Channon, Paul
Fox, Marcus


Banks, Robert
Chapman, Sydney
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Clegg, Sir Walter
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Cockeram, Eric
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Best, Keith
Colvin, Michael
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cope, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Corrie, John
Goodhart, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, Sir Albert
Goodhew, Victor


Blackburn, John
Cranborne, Viscount
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Critchley, Julian
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crouch, David
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bowden, Andrew
Dickens, Geoffrey
Gray, Hamish


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen
Grieve, Percy


Bright, Graham
Dover, Denshore
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brinton, Tim
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grylis, Michael


Brittan, Leon
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Durant, Tony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brotherton, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Elliott, Sir William
Hastings, Stephen


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Emery, Peter
Hawkins, Paul


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Hawksley, Warren


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hayhoe, Barney


Buck, Antony
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Heddle, John

We shall vote on the motion.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was an ornament of the Labour Government who passed five major guillotine motions in one day. I believe that today we have heard from him one of the most arrant pieces of nonsense that the House has heard for a long time.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made his contribution to the debate, because the House will now know what many of us had to listen to—with his charm, courtesy and jokes—for some 46 Committee sittings. I hope that the House will have the benefit, during the remaining few hours, of hearing some more contributions, but I suggest—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Question, pursuant to the Resolution of the House [16 April].

Question put accordingly:

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 173.

Henderson, Barry
Mellor, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br hills)


Hicks, Robert
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Shersby, Michael


Hill, James
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Silvester, Fred


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Hooson, Tom
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Hordern, Peter
Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Monro, Hector
Speller, Tony


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Moore, John
Sproat, Iain


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Squire, Robin


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stainton, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Murphy, Christopher
Stanley, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Myles, David
Steen, Anthony


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Neale, Gerrard
Stevens, Martin


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Needham, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Kershaw, Anthony
Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Neubert, Michael
Strading Thomas J.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Newton, Tony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Normanton, Tom
Tebbit, Norman


Knox, David
Onslow, Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lamont, Norman
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Lang, Ian
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Thompson, Donald


Latham, Michael
Parris, Matthew
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lawrence, Ivan
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lawson, Nigel
Patten, John (Oxford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lee, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Pawsey, James
Trippier, David


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Percival, Sir Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Pollock, Alexander
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Porter, Barry
Waddington, David


Luce, Richard
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wakeham, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Price, Sir David
Waldegrave, Hon William


McCrindle, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Macfarlane, Neil
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


MacGregor, John
Raison, Timothy
Waller, Gary


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rathbone, Tim
Watson, John


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wheeler, John


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McQuarrie, Albert
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitney, Raymond


Madel, David
Riffkind, Malcolm
Wickenden, Keith


Major, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wilkinson, John


Marland, Paul
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Marlow, Tony
Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mates, Michael
Scott, Nicholas



Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
TELLERS FOK THE AYES:


Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Mayhew, Patrick






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Cryer, Bob
Forrester, John


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davidson, Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Freud, Clement


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Deakins, Eric
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Beith, A. J.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dewar, Donald
Gourlay, Harry


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dixon, Donald
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Frank
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dormand, Jack
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dubs, Alfred
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Haynes, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Eadie, Alex
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eastham, Ken
Heffer, Eric S.


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Cartwright, John
English, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr. David (South Shields)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Homewood, William


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Evans, John (Newton)
Horam, John


Cohen, Stanley
Faulds, Andrew
Howells, Geraint


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Field, Frank
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Janner, Hon Greville


Crowther, J. S.
Ford, Ben
Johnson, James (Hull West)







Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Molyneaux, James
Soley, Clive


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Russell
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Kilfedder, James A.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Palmer, Arthur
Straw, Jack


Kinnock, Neil
Park, George
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lamborn, Harry
Parker, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Lamond, James
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North west)
Penhaligon, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tilley, John


Litherland, Robert
Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Race, Reg
Torney, Tom


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Radice, Giles
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Varley, R Hon Ecir Q.


McDonald, or Oonagh
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


McNally, Thomas
Rooker, J. W.
Walking, David


McNamara, Kevin
Roper, John
Welsh, Michael


McTaggart, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


McWilliam, John
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Whitehead, Phillip


Magee, Bryan
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Marks, Kenneth
Sever, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester south)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Woodall, Alec


Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Short, Mrs Renée
Woolmer, Kenneth


Maxton, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)



Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. James Hamilton and


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Snape, Peter
Mr. George Morton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of the House [16 April] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16 April, each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE


Proceedings


Lords Amendments
Time for Conclusion


Nos. 1 to 116
9 p.m.


Nos. 117 to 145
10.30 p.m.


Nos. 146 to 251
midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after 10 o'clock.

3. For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question


on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve Questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) In this paragraph `the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2)Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3)A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4)Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5)No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6)If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion of Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL [ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

EXCEPTIONS TO RIGHT TO BUY

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
or
(c) has at no time received a grant under section 119(3) of the 1957 Act, section 29, 31, 32 or 33 of the 1974 Act or under any enactment mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to that Act.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The object of the amendment is to exclude from the right to buy housing associations that have never received public subsidy. The great majority of associations in this position are charities which have provided their housing from private donations rather than from public funds. They are already excluded from the right to buy by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(a). There are, however, a handful of associations which are not charities and which have not received public subsidy. It has been put to us that such associations can scarcely be described as being in the public sector. We accept that view and this amendment therefore excludes them from the right to buy, although the associations concerned, as charities, will still be enabled to sell.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate the Minister on getting his tongue round that phraseology. I believe that he will find increasing difficulty as the night goes on. No one will think any the worse of him if he sounds as though he is lisping. It is difficult. I thank him for the concession. We regard this as important. My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), as the Minister will recall, was particularly concerned about it. We are pleased that the amendment is being made and accepted by the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

MEANING OF "HOUSE ", "FLAT", "DWELLING-HOUSE" AND "RELEVANT TIME"

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 8, leave out "Part of this Act" and insert "Chapter".

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): With this amendment we may take the following Lords amendments:
Nos. 50 to 53, 57 to 63, 141, 142, 142A, 232 and 233.

Mr. Stanley: These amendments set out the provisions for commencement of the various parts of the Bill. Their result will be that the right-to-buy provisiions in chapter I of Part I will come into operation eight weeks after Royal Assent. The tenants' charter provisions of chapter II will also come into force eight weeks after Royal Assent unless it proves practicable to get the necessary regulations laid more quickly, in which case they will be brought in without waiting for the expiry of eight weeks.
Part V amending part V of the Housing Act 1957 and part VI which introduces the new housing subsidy system will come into operation on enactment of the Bill. The following provisions will also come into effect on enactment—the improvement for sale scheme for local authorities in clause 103, the vesting powers of local authorities on mortgage default in clauses 107 and 108, clause 114 which provides for an increase in the Housing Corporation borrowing limit, the provisions giving housing associations the power to sell whether outright or by shared ownership and also to improve for sale, and also provisions laying down accounting requirements and providing for the establishment of grant redemption funds for registered housing associations in clauses 116 to 121, 123, and 124.
The lifting of the existing restriction on working balances held in the housing revenue account and other matters related to housing accounts in clauses 127 and 128 will also be brought into effect on enactment, as will new clause H, introduced

in another place to restrict local authorities' powers to make certain disposals, and clauses 130 to 132, which include the provisions to exclude shared ownership tenancies from the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
In addition, the interpretive clauses 124 and 139, the regulation and order making provisions of clause 140, subsection (2) of clause 141 and clauses 142 to 144 will all have effect from enhancement.
The remaining provisions of parts VII, VIII, and IX, covering amongst other items improvement and repair grants, service charges and the new provisions relating to houses in multiple occupation, will be brought into force by appointed day order. So also will those dealing with the new shorthold and assured tenancies and other provisions relating to the Rent Acts, part II.
The new rights for public and private sector tenants to make improvements with their landlords' consent—part III—and the amendments relating to jurisdiction and procedure in part IV are all provisions that depend upon the making of regulations or orders or the restriction on form of notices and so on, where it is desirable that those affected should first be able to obtain copies of the Act. The appointed day procedure is clearly the appropriate procedure to use in those circumstances.

Mr. Kaufman: I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some idea when he intends the new shorthold tenures to commence. I put down a question about the matter and he was not then able to clarify the position. It would be of help to many people to know that.
Secondly, I welcome the Government's decision to bring forward the security of tenure for local authority tenants in so far as that is administratively possible—as I understand is their intention—with eight weeks from Royal Assent being the latest possible day but it being permitted within the Bill for that to be earlier. Although I understand the difficulties, it would be of assistance to many local authorities if at this stage, with the Bill approaching Royal Assent so soon, the Minister could give some idea whether he believes it will be possible to bring about the security of tenure before the end of the eight-week period and, if so, how much before.
I should like to take this opportunity to ask the hon. Gentleman to reiterate as emphatically as he can, and if possible to give it somewhat more fully than the Under-Secretary was able to do in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate, the commitment with regard to the wish of Wandsworth borough council to sell certain properties. In that debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) drew attention to the pernicious fact that the authority was seeking to evade the provisions of the Bill—a Conservative authority seeking to circumvent a Conservative Government's measure—by selling off those properties before the security of tenure bestowed upon the tenants would prevent that sale. It seems to us, as I am sure it would to all fair-minded people, that it would be entirely wrong for those properties to be sold in anticipation of, and in spite of, a statute that will come into effect within a few weeks.
We very much welcome the Under-Secretary's commitment that while the matter is being examined the Secretary of State's consent for disposal of the properties is being withheld. It would be of great assistance to the House and to the people of Wandsworth if the Minister said that that consent would not be given before the security of tenure provisions came into force, so that the will of Parliament, which on this issue is a united will, cannot be thwarted by a hasty and furtive act by a local authority. I very much hope that the Minister will be kind enough to give us that commitment.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman asked me first about the date of coming into effect of the shorthold provisions. It is the Government's wish to bring all the provisions of the Bill, including that one, into effect as rapidly as possible. For reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, in view of the secondary legislation involved in some parts of the private rented sector, it is administratively easiest to make the bulk of the provisions to do with that sector commence on the same date. I cannot say today when we shall be able to make an appointed day order, but we hope by October-November to have all the salient provisions of the Bill in operation.
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right about one of the effects of the amendments being to give us the flexibility to bring into effect the tenants' charter provisions, and in particular the security of tenure provision to which he specificially referred, earlier than the maximum period of eight weeks. I emphasise that it is a maximum period. Because of the need to carry out a considerable volume of administrative work so that that chapter of the Bill can be brought in properly by local authorities, I cannot say whether we shall be able to improve on the eight-week time scale. Certainly, if we took the view that for policy reasons it was important to do that, we should make every effort to bring that date forward.
On the right hon. Gentleman's specific point about Wandsworth, I cannot add to, and I do not wish to subtract from, what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in the debate earlier this week.

Mr. Kaufman: May I put to the Minister again a point that I think is important? He will want to think about it, and I appreciate that he may well not be able to give me an instantaneous reply.
It would be deplorable if, with security of tenure for tenants coming no later than 2 October and possibly sooner, a short gap before the bringing into force of that provision enabled a local authority to act in clear defiance of what the Act will state when that part of it is brought into operation. Therefore, now that the Under-Secretary has said, and the Minister has reinforced his statement, that consent for disposal is being withheld while the matter is being looked at—a very proper response and one that I welcome—I very much hope that the Minister will not give his consent. I hope that it will continue to be withheld until the security of tenure provisions come into operation, so that those tenants, like all other tenants, will be able to profit from them and will not have their security taken from them what might well be a matter of days before that security would have been given.
I do not ask the Minister for a response now, but I shall be grateful if he will consider the matter and write to me and to my right hon. Friend the


Member for Battersea, North, who is the Member for the constituency involved.

Mr. Stanley: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I shall be glad, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, to look into the details of the case and to write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

PURCHASE PRICE

Lords amendment: No. 2A, in page 5, line 30, at end insert:
subject to paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 150.

Mr. Finsberg: These are fairly straightforward amendments which allow flats in the same block which are sold under the right-to-buy provision to have leases which end on the same day. The main amendment, as I think will be clear to the House, is to schedule 2. That provides that, once one flat in a block has been leased under the provisions of the Bill for a term of 125 years or more, any subsequent lease of another flat in the block under the right-to-buy provision may terminate at the same time as the lease on the first flat.
That would apply whether the first flat had been sold under the right to buy, or voluntarily under the powers in part V of the Bill. It is right to say that this was a matter that was discussed in Committee. We have had representations from a wide variety of bodies, including the Association of District Councils, the London Boroughs Association, the Law Society, the GLC, the Housing Centre Trust, and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. I am glad to say that on further reflection we were able to advise another place to accept this amendment. The amendments, therefore, to clauses 6 and 15 are consequential. They deal with assumptions for valuing of the flat and the landlord's duty to complete.

Mr. Kaufman: We are, of course, opposed to these forced sales but since, for a short period before repeal of this Bill, these forced sales will take place, we welcome the good sense of the Government in this tidying-up operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

DISCOUNT

Lords amendment: No. 2B, in page 6, line 27, leave out from "to" to second "the" and insert:
the following provisions of this section

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2C, 3 to 7, 11, and 17.

Mr. Finsberg: As you observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a series of amendments and I should like to speak first to amendments 2B and 2C. The Bill provides for a tenant to receive discount in respect of a spouse's secure tenancies provided that the tenant and the spouse are living togther when the notice is served.
But if, for example, a widow has taken over the tenancy on the death of her husband and wishes to exercise the right to buy, the rule as it exists would have meant that she could not rely upon any of her dead husband's entitlement to discount. These amendments would allow her to do that, provided that she became a secure tenant on the death of her husband and the two partners were living together at the time.
This ensures that the discount she receives is no less than her husband would have been entitled to had he lived. This provision, I need hardly add, applies to widowers as well as to widows.
The remaining amendment to clause 7 mirrors a similar provision in the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill. In broad principle it provides that a person who exercises the right to buy in England and Wales under the Housing Bill after spending time as a tenant in Scotland or Northern Ireland will be able to claim discount in respect of those periods


tenancy provided that the tenancies correspond to one of the categories of tenancy in England or Wales for which discount may be claimed.
That ensures, as I feel sure the House would wish, that discount entitlement does not simply vanish if a secure tenant moves across the border in either direction. The new clause meets a commitment given to the House on Report. One of the Members who raised this issue was my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier).
It applies in cases where a child becomes the secure tenant of a dwelling whose preceding secure tenant was one of his or her parents. It would allow landlords the discretion to grant such a tenant credit towards the right to buy under clause 1(3), or discount under clause 7, or both. That would be on the basis of time that he had spent since the age of 16 occupying as his only, or principal, homes dwellings of which the parent was a secure tenant.
Amendment No. 11 provides that if the maximum discount to be prescribed under clause 7(4) has affected the price that the tenant must pay for his home, he must be told about it in the notice which the landlord serves on him under clause 10 setting out the purchase price and other matters. The tenant will, obviously, need this information to make sense of the price that this landlord was quoting.
These are all modest provisions designed to ensure that secure tenants receive a fair deal in all circumstances under the discount provisions of the Bill.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: I take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction for being so sympathetic to the appeal that I made when I spoke on Report.
That resulted in their Lordships moving the amendment to clause 14 which is now before the House. The amendment will be welcomed by thousands of potential home owners who will benefit from the provisions detailed in this clause. It will ensure that the children of deceased parents who would, previously, have lost the discount entitlement carried by their parents and to which they had contributed by paying the rent or part of it

have that entitlement protected with the permission of their local authority.
I am pleased that the wording of the amendment to subsection (2) makes it clear that the child of the original tenant can qualify for the discount entitlement in the eyes of the local authority only if he or she has occupied the council house in question as his, or her, only, or principal, home. In other words, the child must have lived with the parent or parents who were the secure tenants. I was searching for that wording in my original speech on this matter.
Since speaking to my amendment on Report I have received numerous inquiries from tenants affected by this provision in my own constituency. As a result of national publicity at the time I received an enormous correspondence from all over the country. I am entirely satisfied that the provisions detailed in this amendment will meet the criteria which I tried to lay before the House on a previous occasion.
I thank my hon. Friend for keeping his word and for honouring the obligation he accepted on Report and for introducing this amendment in another place.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am glad that we have been able to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend. I shall convey his thanks to my hon. Friend, who may have heard what he had to say.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2C and 3 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8

REPAYMENT OF DISCOUNT ON EARLY DISPOSAL OF FREEHOLD OR LEASE

Lords amendment: No. 8 in page 8, line 18, leave out from "by" to "for" in line 19 and insert:
a body specified in subsection (4A) below

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9, 100, 101, 102, 118 and 119.

Mr. Finsberg: These are technical amendments and, as the House knows.


we wish to encourage those who purchase houses from local authorities, or housing associations, to get the mortgages they need as far as possible from private sector lenders. In this way we seek to derive the maximum benefit to the public purse from the sale of council houses.
These amendments give first priority to the mortgages of certain other lenders besides local authorities, the Housing Corporation and building societies for whom the Bill already provides priority of mortgage. These other lenders are insurance companies, trustee savings banks and banks as identified for the purposes of the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 9 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, line 31, at end insert:
and for the purposes of this section the grant of an option enabling a person to call for a disposal falling within subsection (3) above shall be treated as such a disposal.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 39, 97, 103 and 104.

Mr. Stanley: These amendments follow an undertaking that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) on Report, when he said that he would consider further the possible loophole in the provision in clause 8 for the repayment of discount where a purchaser under the right to buy resells within the five years. There was the possibility that the liability to repay discount in these circumstances might be avoided by granting a subsequent purchaser an option to buy rather than conveying the dwelling house to him straightforwardly during the five-year period. Because the grant of the option would not count as a disposal, there would be no liability to repay discount at that stage, and when the sale finally took place the five years would be up.
These amendments deal with this possible loophole and a similar one which could exist on the 10-year rural area

pre-emption safeguard under clause 18. They also cover the parallel case of discount sharing or a rural area safeguard imposed on a voluntary sales scheme under part V.

Mr. Kaufman: I acknowledge the Minister's concession. But I draw attention to the absence of the Liberal Party from the debate. The Liberal Party in my constituency, and no doubt in other constituencies, pretends that it has the interests of tenants and all other householders at heart, but that is a bogus act deceiving people. The Liberal Party is a propaganda party which is not interested in serious debate. I hope that it will be noted, as I shall make it known in Manchester, that when the Minister was responding to one of the rare Liberal amendments, the entire Liberal Party was absent from this place and it has so far not shown itself interested in one of the most important Bills to go through Parliament since the general election.
I acknowledge the Minister's concession, but I take this opportunity of exposing the Liberal Party's fraudulent and bogus claims to be interested in this legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

Clause 10

NOTICE OF PURCHASE PRICE AND RIGHT TO A MORTGAGE

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 10, line 8, after "12" insert "and section 15(3A)"

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 14, 19 to 22 and 24 to 26.

Mr. Stanley: These amendments revise the provision in the Bill for a tenant whose mortgage entitlement is insufficient to enable him to exercise his right to buy at once and to be able to deposit £100 with his landlord and have the option to defer completion for two years.
These amendments enable the tenant to claim his right to defer completion of


his purchase by depositing £100 with his landlord without having to wait for a completion notice. That was the previous structure of the Bill. The purchaser will be warned of the right to deferred completion when he receives notice of the purchase price under clause 10. That is provided for in amendment No. 12. The notice of mortgage entitlement under clause 12 will also advise him of his right to deferred completion and enclose a form for claiming it, as provided in amendment No. 14.
Where appropriate, the tenant will be able to claim deferred completion within three months of the landlord's notice under clause 12(4), which informs the tenant of the landlord's calculation of his mortgage entitlement, or within a longer period if the landlord or county court considers that there are reasonable grounds for extending the period.
The amendments also cover the requirement in deferred completion for the tenant to complete his purchase within two years of the service of his notice claiming to exercise the right to buy. Amendment No. 25 provides that, where a tenant has indicated his willingness to proceed with the sale by requiring the landlord to reassess his mortgage entitlement within two years but the sale has not been completed within that period, the landlord may, where there are reasonable grounds for doing so, extend the period for completion at the original price.
This may be desirable where, for instance, there had been some delay over processing the revised mortgage application. If there are reasonable grounds for the landlord to act in such a way, but he fails to do so, the county court may extend the period by order.
Amendment No. 20 incorporates an Opposition amendment to clause 15. It makes it entirely clear that the right to defer completion is open only to those tenants whose mortgage entitlement is insufficient to enable them to buy outright.

Mr. Kaufman: I should have wished to oppose vigorously this group of amendments had it not been for two matters. The first was the Minister's last sentence, in which he made it clear that one of the amendments was acceptable to the

Opposition. Therefore, it would be somewhat inconsistent to oppose a group that included an amendment that I support, and inconsistency is alien to my nature.
Secondly, we wish to concentrate the debate on the £100 option on amendment No. 23. Since we are proceeding under the guillotine, I do not wish to take up more time on that matter. However, we do not like the way that the Government seem in some circumstances to be extending this option even beyond the two-year period and in certain circumstances giving the court the right to do so.
We shall not vote against the amendment, but I make it clear that that is due to the shortage of time.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 12

CLAIM TO A MORTGAGE

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 11, line 32, at end insert:
and (c) the provisions which, in the opinion of the Landlord or Housing Corporation, should be contained in the deed by which the mortgage is to be affected.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a procedural amendment. Its effect is simply to require the local authority, when notifying the purchaser of the amount it considers may be left outstanding on mortgage and the way in which this amount has been arrived at, also to notify him of the provisions which it proposes should be included in the mortgage. The Housing Corporation is to be under a similar obligation when advancing money to housing associations.
By "provisions" I refer, of course, to such matters as the rate of interest and the period of repayment. It is obviously important for the purchaser to have this information at an early stage. The amendment will achieve that and will be in the interests of those exercising their right to buy.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.

Clause 13

CHANGE OF SECURE TENANT AFTER NOTICE CLAIMING RIGHT TO BUY OR RIGHT TO A MORTGAGE.

Lords amendment: No. 15. in page 11, line 38, leave out:
or the right to a mortgage

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 16.

Mr. Stanley: These are procedural amendments to clause 13, which governs what happens when there is a change of secure tenant after the service of a notice claiming the right to buy.
When the change of tenancy takes place, the landlord may already have served on the former tenant a notice under clause 10 telling him the price to which he is entitled and, among other things, about his right to a mortgage. The former tenant may even have served a notice under clause 12 claiming the right to a mortgage. The size of the mortgage to which the new tenant is entitled will depend on his own circumstances, and not the former tenant's.
Amendment No. 16 therefore provides that, where a notice has already been served under clause 10, a new form is to be sent to the new tenant for him to give details of his own financial circumstances if he wishes to exercise his right to a mortgage. The new tnenant would then have the normal three months to fill in and return the form.
Amendment No. 15 deletes words rendered unnecessary by amendment No. 16.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 15

COMPLETION

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 13, line 39, after "price" insert
that price to be determined by adding half the difference between the value of the dwelling-house at the time of completion of the transaction and the value at the time the notice exercising the right to buy was served.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The whole purpose of the option provisions of the Bill is to give a tenant who is not able to afford to buy outright immediately the opportunity of saving for a two-year period while the price of his house or flat remains fixed. Yet the intention of this amenedment is not that the price should remain fixed during the option period but that it should go up by half of the increase in the value of the house between the time that the tenant applies to buy and the time that he actually completes the purchase.
We made it clear at the election that the price would be fixed during the option period. Our objective is to help council tenants to buy, and that means keeping the price fixed so that tenants know exactly how much they have to save during the option period.
Unless the price is fixed, tenants will simply not know how much they will have to save. They will be at the mercy of whatever happens to be the rate of increase in house prices during the option period and, as the House knows, that can vary greatly from year to year.
A tenant, and perhaps other members of his family buying with him, could, for instance, save furiously for the two-year period and accumulate perhaps an extra £200 to £300. But, if this amendment were accepted, they would not know whether they had saved enough until the house was valued again at completion. If they even found themselves, say, £500 short because of the rise of house prices, the family would reasonably feel that they had had a thoroughly raw deal, having saved hard and then found themselves short.
This amendment is yet another reflection of the fact that the Labour Party wants to stop as many tenants as possible from being able to buy their homes. Our objective is quite the reverse, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Frank Allaun: This is one amendment on which the Opposition strongly disagree with the Government. The vote in the other place was 90 to 86 in favour of the amendment. The amendment was moved by Baroness David—a Conservative—which should make Conservative Members in this House


hesitate before they pursue the point. An enormous bonanza is given to purchasers—up to 50 per cent. discount on the price of the house if they have lived in it for 20 years, plus up to 20 per cent. or more if this clause is included in the Bill. A discount of 70 per cent. is a giveaway, and clearly the buyer's gain is the community's loss.
Baroness David said that the objective of her amendment was:
to prevent quite such a big present being handed to the prospective purchaser at the expense of the local authority ratepayers and taxpayers "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1980; Vol 412, c. 65.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman is quoting the words of a Minister in the other place, he will have to find another method of communicating his message to this House.

Mr. Allaun: I was quoting the words of Baroness David, who is not a Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must use some other words to express the same message to this House.

Mr. Allaun: I have made a mistake, and I cannot put it right, but that is what Baroness David said. She said that it was a tremendous gift at the expense of the local authority, the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
I repeat that the purchaser's gain is the community's loss. We cannot give such a vast handout without someone having to pay for it—and it is the rest of the community who will have to pay. Under this amendment a further two years' bonus will be given to the purchaser.
Every year house prices rise and, according to the Nationwide Building Society, with which many hon. Members are familiar, in the two-year period from 1977 to 1979 house prices rose by 63.7 per cent.—31.8 per cent. per annum. Admittedly, that was a period of high inflation, but there have been other periods of high inflation. Purchasers will be able to buy their houses at the price that was payable two years previously. In addition to the discount of up to 50 per cent., they will receive a discount of up to 20 per cent.
I and my hon. Friends maintain that if options are allowed the house should be purchased at the existing market price.
We are giving away a lot in allowing a discount of up to 50 per cent. The proposal from the Lords is a generous compromise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) nods assent. The price should not be one penny less than the market price.
Governments are not bound by acts of previous Governments, but I can envisage, on the eve of the next general election, queues of people forming to pay the £100 option of this sort. That would mean that for the first two years of their existence a Labour Government would be forced to compel councils to sell houses which neither the council nor the Government wished to sell. That is monstrous, and it is in conflict with the principle that I have stated.
If the sale of the house had been completed, it would be wrong for a Labour Government to interfere. However, if the sale of the house had not been completed, a Labour Government should pay back the £100 deposit or the option payment plus interest. That would be fair to all concerned.
Lord Bellwin's brief reply to the debate on this amendment was worthless, depreciatory and hardly worth making. He said:
it is harder to save up when the price against which you are saving is in fact increasing as you save,"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1980; Vol. 412, c. 66.]
That was really all that he did say. Everything else is increasing in price. Are people to be protected because the price of potatoes increases, so that they may buy potatoes at their price two years earlier? Clearly, that is ridiculous. Why should one item be under the Government's protection? It is because the Government are so desperate to sell council houses. For the reasons that I have stated, I and many of my hon. Friends are completely opposed to the Bill.

8 pm

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I endorse the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). I draw to the attention of the House the finding of the Environment Committee on the sale of council houses. It appears in the Committee's report on the implications of the


public expenditure White Paper. It states:
Your Committee estimates that an average of between five and 10 houses will need to be sold in order to build one replacement.
For that reason the Committee considered it extremely important that the volume of sales should be limited as effectively as possible.
If sales are to be effected at a price which is subject to 20 per cent. per annum inflation in house prices, we are discussing a price that will be 40 per cent. below the market price, without taking into account the discount. The pressure on local authorities to replace the houses that are lost to meet the housing need will be greatly intensified.
There was a strong thread running through the evidence that the Select Committee received from local authorities of all political complexions—namely, that the option provisions are causing them great anxiety. They feel that it will be extremely difficult to ascertain to what extent a secure tenant claiming to exercise the right to buy genuinely fails to meet the financial qualifications and is thus able to claim the option provision.
The scope for abuse is enormous. It will be very much to the advantage of anyone to seek to use the option provision rather than to purchase at the price that applies when he gives his notice. The option provision is a bad one and the Lords amendment, which limits the damage that will be caused by it, deserves the support of the House.

Mr. Don Dixon: There is no doubt that anyone with average common sense will rush along to put down his £100. It is a pity that the Government do not treat private assets as they treat public assets. Their aim is to boost the sale of council houses. That policy does not produce one additional housing unit.
I was chairman of a housing committee for a considerable time. I am still the committee's vice-chairman. The authority has been selling council houses for almost three years. It has 37,400 council houses and it has sold about 300. The 300 are all semi-detached houses on the best parts of the estates.
If someone lives in a council house, he has secure tenure. The house is his in any event. Anyone who knows anything

about public housing knows that allocations and transfers are decided mainly by relets. There is an average reletting of between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. Most new building is slum clearance. A total council house stock of 37,400 leads to 1,000 relets a year. If council houses are sold, tenants do not apply for reallocation.
What happens if the price of a house decreases? Consett, Corby and other towns are being murdered. Houses in those areas may decrease in value in two years' time. Will the Government say that that price will not apply and there will be a revaluation? Will they acknowledge that Government policy has murdered the town, that no one is living there and that houses have become readily available?
The other place did not go far enough. The Government's policy is nonsensical. Their aim is to persuade tenants to rush to deposit their £100 and to give a boost to the section of the Tory manifesto on the sale of council houses. The provision is nonsensical and I hope that it is rejected.

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) escorted me round some of the housing in his constituency a short while ago. I was able to see for myself the difficulties in his area. I had explained to me the situation that he has described to the House. He has spoken with great experience of local government housing. That is the most authoritative experience, from which the House can benefit.
I take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), the chairman of the Environment Committee, on his Committee's report. His Committee produced an outstanding report a few days ago. It indicts the Secretary of State on a number of issues. It draws attention to facts that otherwise would not have been elucidated. My hon. Friend and his Committee have done a service to the House by providing us with those facts and by giving the Secretary of State a case to which he will not easily find a credible response.
In moving disagreement with the Lords amendment the Minister made a most amazing claim. He said that when another place decided to insert the


amendment it was an example of the hostility of the Labour Party to home ownership. I live and learn every day, but that is the first news that I have had that there is a Labour majority in another place and that the Labour Party is able to impose its will upon that place.
My noble Friends who campaigned against the Bill and who won a significant number of victories by their dedication and hard work could not have won one victory if they had not been joined by members of other parties and by those of no party. They could not have won if the Conservative Party had been able to muster its full strength in another place. Such is the disillusionment with the Bill in another place that my noble Friends were able to obtain a majority for their amendments. That did not happen because we have a majority in that place. If we had, some of the accidents that took place in the previous Parliament might not have taken place.
I express my agreement with all my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate. It is undoubtedly one of the nastiest aspects of the compulsory sale of council houses. I refer to the £100 option. It is nothing less than a rip-off of public assets. The Government are forcing up the cost of so many items such as fuel, telephone bills and railway fares, and this is the one price that they have decided to freeze. They are in favour of the free market on every other issue.
The £100 option with a frozen price is especially offensive to private house buyers, who are finding it especially difficult to buy because of the high mortgage interest rate that has been brought about by the Government's economic policies. House price inflation is still very high. The rate has been falling because of the lack of buyers caused by the high mortgage interest rate, but, it is still very high. Other purchasers have to accept it.
The Minister tried to draw tears from us by painting a picture of council house tenants wishing to buy and being at the mercy of house price increases. Thousands of people in humble circumstances who are not council tenants wish to buy houses. They are at the mercy of increased house prices. The Government are responsible for those price increases,

yet they can offer them nothing. Such people have been priced out of home ownership. In addition, they must pay their rates and taxes and contribute to a rip-off that will benefit a small and privileged minority.
Private home owners have to accept house price inflation. Yesterday, figures were published showing that only 628,000 new mortgages are expected this year, compared with 715,000 last year. That is a reduction of 12 per cent. Such people get no help from the Government. A small minority will have its privilege paid for by everybody else. The £100 option is an offence to the taxpayers and ratepayers who must pay for it.
If I have a criticism of the noble Lords who carried the amendment against the Government's wishes, it is that the amendment is over-generous. It still gives the beneficiary of the £100 option a large gift at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers. Those taxpayers and ratepayers will pay interest on the building of such houses while the purchaser is given the option to buy. The purchaser will not suffer fully from house price inflation. In addition, the discount will eat up some of the price increase.
If the amendment is accepted, the purchaser on the £100 option will have to share some of the burden of inflation with his benefactors, mainly the taxpayers and ratepayers. It redresses the balance to some extent. That is why we believe that the amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment in the other place. He described her as a Conservative peer. I note that Dod's Parliamentary Companion describes her as a Labour Life Baroness. I am delighted to know that there has been yet another convert to the Tory Party. No doubt there are many more to come.
The hon. Member for Salford. East made a significant statement in his capacity as a member of the national executive of the Labour Party. He made clear that his view—and I assume that his view represents that of the national executive—was that, if there were a


change of Government, the Labour Party would not honour options that were still running. Although he accepted that if an option had been completed it would have to be honoured, he made clear that the Labour Party would not regard itself as bound by options that were running when a change of Government took place. I am sure that that will not be forgotten.
The hon. Member for Salford, East and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) made similar points. They suggested that there should be continuing price inflation during the option period. That would effectively nullify the effect of the option. The purpose of the option is to enable those who cannot buy immediately to save up during that time and to accumulate the difference between their maximum mortgage capacity and the price of the house. Inevitably, the price of the house will be somewhat higher. However, if the price escalates all the time that will defeat the purpose of the option. There would then be no point in having an option provision.
We want to give those council tenants who want to buy their homes every possible opportunity to do so. Inevitably, a considerable number will wish to exercise the right to buy for the first time. Although they may not be able to afford the full purchase price, they might have a maximum mortgage capacity equal to 70 or 90 per cent. of the purchase price. Over a two-year period, those tenants would have a reasonable opportunity to increase their earnings and savings, and would then be able to buy their houses.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the Minister intend to introduce a similar provision to assist the young people who come to my surgery every week? They do not have the advantage of being council house tenants and they are desperate either for a council house or to buy a house. House prices are increasing faster and faster. They are trying to save money in order to buy a house, but as they have no house at all, they have no opportunity of buying the house in which they live.

Mr. Stanley: In accordance with the logic of his argument, the hon. Gentleman should urge the considerable number of predominantly Labour-controlled London authorities which have empty

property in poor condition to sell it under the new powers, particularly those relating to improvements being made for sale. Those authorities will then be able to meet some of that demand.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The Minister will find out that option holders cannot buy a house at present. How will he ascertain that means? Will everybody who puts down £100 be given a means test? How will he discover that a person does not have enough money to buy the house on the spot?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the relevant clause, he will note that that will be automatically ascertained. The tenant will apply to the local authority in the normal way to exercise his right to a mortgage. The local authority will immediately see whether his maximum mortgage capacity is in excess of or below the price of the house that it has valued. Therefore, such knowledge will be in the hands of the local authority in the normal way.

Mr. James Hill: If a local authority is opposed to selling council houses, it could make things very difficult. It could increase local authority mortgage interest charges to a level that is above the norm.

Mr. Stanley: There is a provision establishing a ceiling on a local authority's mortgage interest rate. In addition, the Bill also provides for an independent means of valuing the house if the tenant and landlord cannot agree. The tenant has that protection.
The amendment carried in the other place would substantially nullify the purpose of the option, namely, to enable council tenants who cannot buy immediately to save up and to buy at a fixed price over a two-year period.

Mr. Dixon: What does the Minister suggest local authorities, which have planned maintenance and modernisation programmes, should do if someone puts down a £100 option? Does he suggest that local authorities should take those houses out of such programmes? If they do not, an authority might add to the value of the house after it had been assessed. My local authority has a planned manitenance programme on pointing, reguttering, bathroom furniture,


and so on. Does the Minister suggest that my authority should take such houses out of the programme? If it does not do so, it is likely to fall foul of the legislation by adding to the value of the house.

Mr. Stanley: Ultimately, that will be for the decision of local authorities. There are provisions in the legislation under which secondary legislation will deal with improvements as regards the cost floor and for valuation purposes. It is essential for the efficacy of the option that the price should remain fixed for a two-year period. I ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 159.

See Division 447

in column 1079

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 14, line 17, at end insert:
and, if there is then a subtenancy, section 139 of the Law of Property Act 1925 shall apply as on a merger or surrender.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a minor technical amendment. Clause 15(9) provides that a purchaser's secure tenancy shall come to an end on the completion of his purchase under the right to buy. The amendment is designed to protect the position of any sub-tenancies which he might have granted before then. It provides for that by applying section 139 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16

CONVEYANCE OF FREEHOLD AND GRANT OF LEASE

Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 14, line 21, at end insert:
and Part IV of that Schedule applies in relation to certain charges.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 152.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendments are technical. They make the necessary provision for cases where a dwelling house in respect of which a tenant is exercising his right to buy is subject to an existing mortgage, rent or other charge. They are designed to reflect the practice in the private sector as far as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18

DWELLING-HOUSES IN NATIONAL PARKS AND AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY, ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 14, line 44, at beginning insert:
the local authority with the consent of

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is to allow local authorities, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to designate the additional rural areas under clause 18(1).

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that last night on television the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) made statements about the amendment. He is not present in the Chamber. Is not that an abuse of the House? What protection does the House have if hon. Members make statements on television but are not present when the issue is debated?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Finsberg: That remark belongs in fort Ardwick. The amendment deals

with areas besides national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty in which the special rural safeguards apply.

Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister aware that arising out of last night's programme on television there is considerable concern in national park areas about the statement by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth? Will the Minister please confirm that it will not be illegal to sell council houses within national parks?

Mr. Finsberg: I did not have the spare time that Labour Members had to watch the programme. As I did not have the pleasure of seeing it, I cannot comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) is alleged to have said. However, I tell the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that it is not illegal. I should have seen the programme, as my hon. Friend was participating.
As the Bill stood when it left this House, it was the Secretary of State who was to make the order. We made it clear that the Secretary of State would listen to what local authorities had to say on such designations.
I remind the House of what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said in Committee:
I give him a clear assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that we regard the matter not just as one of consultation between the local authorities and the Secretary of State but as a matter for initiative by the local authorities. We have no pre-conceived view about areas that are suitable for rural designation. We regard the initiative as lying with local authorities and it is for them to take a view as to the relevance of the clause to their circumstances. I am sure that they will put forward proposals to the Secretary of State if they feel they should have designations in their areas. We regard the involvement of the Local authorities as integral with the operation of the locality covenant, in the new way that is described here."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 February 1980; c. 406.]
We stand by that.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am delighted to hear that the Minister stands by that. However, as the courts are precluded from looking at Hansard, does he accept that it would be appropriate for that undertaking to be embodied in the Bill? The Lords amendment gives effect to that.

Mr. Finsberg: I anticipated that that might be said, and I shall come to the point in a moment.
In trying to convert an undertaking into a statutory duty, the amendment risks causing confusion without achieving valuable practical effect. The local authority would now make the order to designate the rural area under clause 18(1), but the Secretary of State would still have the job of designating the regions from which future purchasers must come where there was a locality covenant. The Secretary of State would also still have to give or withhold his consent under clause 18(4) to the imposition of the alternative safeguards of a 10-year pre-emption condition. Out of necessity, the arrangements under clause 18 are already complicated. Surely the subdivision of duties between the Secretary of State and the local authority provides an additional complication that is unnecessary.
There are further objections to the amendment. If the orders were made by a local authority and not by the Secretary of State, they would not come under the scrutiny of Parliament.

Mr. Jack Straw: That was exactly the point made by Lord Bellwin, but I fail to understand it. If the Secretary of State's consent is required, the exercise of that consent will properly be the subject of scrutiny by this House.

Mr. Finsberg: That is almost the next point that I was coming to. Not only does the absence of scrutiny seem constitutionally undesirable. It would also mean that there would be no way of finding out whether orders had been made, such as would be provided by the relevant statutory instrument if the Secretary of State made the order.
I suggest that the amendment would lead to administrative inconvenience and inefficiency. I ask the House to consider what the effect would be on a tenant of the inconvenience and inefficiency. It would enable a local authority to delay the exercise of the right to buy by saying that it was considering whether to make an order, and, when it had done so, approaching the Secretary of State for his consent. In our view, that would get the right to buy off to a thoroughly slow start in many areas. No doubt that

thought has occurred to some Labour Members who support the amendment, but it is not an argument that commends itself to me or to my hon. Friends. Therefore, I urge the House to disagree with the amendment.
Let me repeat, so that it is on the record once more, that any considered recommendation by a local authority for the designation of an additional rural area under clause 18(1) will receive my right hon. Friend's careful investigation and consideration.

Mr. Straw: I listened with care to the Under-Secretary, as usual, but I found him less convincing than usual. He failed to give a proper answer to the question that I asked. One of the arguments that the Government have used—at length—in another place is that to provide that the initiative should rest with a local authority would be to ensure that there would be no parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions made by the Secretary of State in exercising his consent. That is simple nonsense.

Mr. Kaufman: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Government have made precisely that provision in their amendment dealing with old people's dwellings? It is on the initiative of the local authority, the Secretary of State is required to give consent and there is no parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing that analogy to my attention, but I hope that he will agree that, in fact, there will be every opportunity for scrutiny, because any decision that a Minister makes is subject to scrutiny by the House through written and oral questions and through the normal processes of debate.
The Under-Secretary is also wrong to allege that we should not be able to find out how the Secretary of State had exercised his consent. I hope and assume that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that the Government would refuse to answer questions about whether, and in what circumstances, the Secretary of State had decided to exercise his consent. Those objections of the Under-Secretary are worthless and should be treated as such.
Throughout the debates on the Bill, the Labour Opposition have fought, often


with the support of Conservative local authorities, to say that local authorities and local people know most about defending the housing needs of their areas. The Government have wished to provide a uniform scheme irrespective of local circumstances and whether, for example, council houses that are desperately needed in rural areas could be snapped up as second homes and removed from the market of working people.
Bit by bit, the Government have conceded some changes and improvements to give some protection to those living in council houses in rural areas and those in need of such houses, but they have refused to accord local authorities the responsibility, that they deserve, for deciding whether they should be treated as rural areas. It is our view that the initiative must rest with the local authorities.
The Under-Secretary said that if that happened it would ensure that the right to buy got off to a thoroughly slow start which was what most Labour Members wanted. Occasionally, the hon. Gentleman gets at the truth and it is true that we wish the sale of council houses to get off to a slow start. However, that is not our intention in putting forward this proposal. Neither, in response to the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major), will it be the effect. Although the designation of a rural area is on the initiative of a local authority, it depends for its consent and its operation upon the Secretary of State. The present Secretary of State, for the foreseeable future, will exercise that discretion, and he will no doubt do so swiftly and exercise it in those areas where he is convinced that the local authority is justified.

Mr. John Major: Is it not a fact that the local authority could take a considerable time before deciding to designate the area and indicating that it has such a designation in mind? That, in itself, could cause considerable delay.

Mr. Straw: A local authority could do the same now. It could indicate that it intended to apply to the Secretary of State for an order. As long as the local authority has not applied, and no order has been given, under the present provisions, and provided that the local authority has made no order under the clauses

proposed in another place, that would in no way affect the rights of individuals wishing to buy their council houses. The Minister's suggestion that the right to buy would be seriously undermined by the amendment is nonsense. It would enhance the right of local authorities. They have the information, and they know when to take the initiative. I support the amendment.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: As the House will be aware, the Environment Committee has taken evidence on the financial and social consequences of selling local authority houses. Among that evidence were representations from a number of rural authorities, including oral evidence from the South Lakeland district council and the Allerdale district council. As a consequence of their evidence the Committee instructed me to write to the Secretary of State to draw attention to the anxieties felt by a large number of rural areas about the prospect of the loss of the few council houses in villages—not necessarily in areas of national parks or outstanding natural beauty, but in agricultural villages where the council houses are occupied by key workers. They are at risk of being compulsorily sold with the consequence that within a few years the houses will be taken over as second homes.
I accept that since the time when I, on the instructions of the Committee, communicated with the Secretary of State amendments have been introduced which improve the position for those areas that have been designated. Subject to the Lords amendments, the defect in the Bill as it stands is that there are large parts of the country where a local authority may feel, rightly and essentially, that if it loses the few houses upon which the key workers depend, a village will die. I am sure that Conservative Members will know even better than Opposition Members the extent to which a village can suddenly be transformed from a place with real life to a place which is a source of commuters or a base for holiday homes. I urge the Minister and Conservative Members to seek to protect the viability of rural communities by maintaining the Lords amendment as it stands.
The Minister will be aware that, in a question which was answered in


Hansard on 30 July, c. 741, I asked which local authorities had made representations to the Secretary of State about the provisions of the Housing Bill for rural areas. The Minister listed 12 authorities which had made representations about the dangers to rural areas. I draw his attention to the fact that only one of those 12 authorities was a Labour-controlled authority. The remainder were Conservative, independent or non-party authorities, and they made the greater part of the case in urging him to have second thoughts about this measure.
The Minister must know what harm this Bill can cause in an area in which those on whom the rural economy depends are liable to find that they no longer have the opportunity to be housed by the local authority. I am glad that the Government have accepted that they should not make changes in the provisions of the Rent (Agriculture) Act. But, if they lose local authority houses, how will they fulfil their obligations? How will they sustain the life of rural areas if they allow these few houses to be sold?
It is the local authorities in those areas that know, far better than the Minister or anyone in Whitehall can know, the extent to which the few houses in a particular locality are essential to the economy and to the society of that locality. It is for them to make the representations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has demolished the Under-Secretary's point about Parliament not having the opportunity to exercise control over this. Let the local authority make the representations. Under the amendment, the Minister has the power to say "No, this is a nonsense."

Mr. Hill: Does it not exacerbate the difficulty when local authorities are so reluctant to give any planning consent, even for tied cottages on farms? It is extremely difficult these days to get any planning consent in the sort of areas about which the hon. Gentleman is talking.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman is raising a point which no doubt he can raise on another occasion. It is not directly relevant. Local authorities said

to the Select Committee "We must not lose these houses. They are irreplaceable, because we cannot get the planning consent to enable us to build more houses." That is a valid point.
There is no need for the Government to use their majority to crush this amendment on this minor proposal for a degree of local government autonomy. The Government have been crushing local government democracy with measures such as the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill and this Bill. This opportunity for local authorities to take the initiative to propose is something which should be enacted in the statute. We have had the undertaking from the Secretary of State in Committee, which the Minister has repeated. As I pointed out in an intervention, an undertaking in Committee is in no way enforceable. The courts will not look at that. They will look at the words in the statute. I urge the House to ensure that these words remain in the statute.

Mr. Kaufman: Without being contentious, I should like to draw attention to the fact that a Member of this House took part in a television debate on this matter last night, apparently misinforming the public about the content of the Bill, and has not seen fit to be present when the House of Commons is debating it. I regard that as an abuse of the House. It is Parliament where these matters are debated. If an hon. Member is to discuss a piece of legislation which is being debated in this House the next day, apparently inaccurately representing, in any case, what the legislation contains, I should have thought it incumbent on the hon. Member at least to do the House the courtesy of attending the debate on the matter on which he has been lecturing us on television.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I even made the point of speaking to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) prior to this debate. I did not know that this matter was to be raised. However, as the Minister will be aware, there are many people in the national parks, nationally, who are very anxious about the clauses which would require them to sell property in the event of the tenants applying under the right to buy.


As a result of the programme last night, whatever the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth said, it has been construed from his statement that in the national parks people do not have the right to buy their homes. Indeed, the local authorities were today celebrating their belief that this right to buy did not exist. I think that it is incumbent on the Minister in this debate to make clear nationally what the law is, and to take into account the position of local authorities which not only own properties within a national park but whose national parks are surrounded by other rural areas which are just as exciting for potential second home owners—indeed, great parts of my constituency—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a long intervention.

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) feels passionately on this issue and has worked hard to correct the situation in his constituency. It is hard on him, when he has a constituency that is particulary affected, that his constituents, who are very concerned about the matter, should be misinformed by an hon. Member who does not understand the Bill, who does not speak for the Government and who does not bother to turn up in the Chamber when the issue is debated.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I should like to address myself to the merits—

Mr. Tony Durant: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I should like to address myself to the merits of this important matter. If the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) wishes to vindicate himself, he has the opportunity to be present here to do so, and he does not require the protection of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth knew that the matter was being debated. It is down in the amendment book and on the Order Paper.

Mr. Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to give notice that, after the shadow spokesman has concluded, I would like to speak on behalf

of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle).

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) is so gallant. I admire him for his efforts on this issue.
As my hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of the amendment have said, and as I hope a number of Conservative Members will also agree, this is a modest amendment. It is not an amendment that will do what television viewers were apparently told last night. It will not end the compulsory sale of council houses in this area.
The amendment is so modest that I find it impossible to understand why the Government are so determined to smother it. Strong arguments have been advanced far beyond the limits of the Labour Party for the exclusion of rural areas altogether from the compulsory sale of council houses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has pointed out, great damage can be inflicted on the balance in such communities if high proportions of a small housing stock are being sold off.
The amendment does not go anything like so wide as the kind of exclusion that we have achieved for old people's dwellings. The amendment accepts the principle and content of clause 18 as it stands. We regard clause 18, even with its improvements, as unsatisfactory, but we are not seeking to have that clause rejected. All the amendment does is to say "Do not leave it to the Secretary of State to decide what is a rural area." After all, the Secretary of State, any Secretary of State—I am not making a personal reflection on the right hon. Gentleman—cannot know the whole country intimately. Lord Bellwin, for the Government, admitted in the Lords that he did not know what areas, or even what kind of areas, the Secretary of State is going to designate as rural areas. We have not had that clarification.
We are saying that the local authorities, which do know the areas intimately, should have the initiative in designating those areas. We are not asking that the local authorities be given the last word. We are not asking even that they have a deciding word, because the Secretary of State will have to give his consent if a local authority seeks to designate


itself as a rural area. It would not be possible, for example, in my constituency, for the Manchester city council to seek to evade the provision by designating Ardwick Green of Victoria Park as a rural area.
9 pm
The answer to my hon. Friend for Mitcham and Morden which my hon. Friend has quoted shows that a considerable number of local authorities, often Conservative-controlled, are very worried about the impact of the Bill, even with clause 18, on rural areas. Lord Hylton, a person of Conservative antecedents, said:
it is entirely consistent with Conservative principles that there should be this initiative in the hands of the local authority, who know the area and who are elected to represent it." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1980; Vol. 412, c.76.]
I am not a connoisseur of Conservative principles, but the Secretary of State is supposed to be. This small amendment would alleviate the concern of rural areas. I cannot imagine why the Government will not accept it. I trust that they will.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am now required to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 171.

See Division 448

in column 1081

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I am now required to designate any amendments involving privilege. There is only one such amendment, namely, No. 110.
Next, I put the Question on each motion to be moved by a Minister to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Clause 22

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO INTERVENE

Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 18, line 1, after "so" insert
and of his reasons for doing so
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the

Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 171.

See Division 449

in column 1085

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 110 agreed to. [Special Entry].

Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 39, 41 to 109, and 111 to 116 agreed to.

Mr. John Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise this brief point of order. I understand that during my absence elsewhere in the House about 10 minutes ago, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), in seeking to persuade the House to carry Lords amendment No. 29, made a certain implication about a contribution that I made to a BBC 2 television programme last night. I should like to place in the official record the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not give me notice that he would raise this matter. On a point of personal clarification, I should like to say that in that programme I was replying to what I considered to be an outrageous misrepresentation of the interpretation of the Bill—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point. If any hon. Member has been criticised, I normally let both sides make a brief explanation of their innocence.

New Clause F

HOUSING SUBSIDIES

Lords Amendment: No. 117, after clause 109, in page 78, line 23, at end insert—
F.—(1) The provisions of section 24(1)(B) of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 shall have effect where a person borrows, or two or more persons borrow jointly, from a qualifying lender on the security of a freehold or leasehold estate of the borrower, or of one or more of the borrowers (including an estate held jointly or in common by the borrower, or one or more of the borrowers and one or more other persons) in land in Great Britain, and the following conditions are satisfied:—

(a) that the loan is or was made as part of a scheme under which not less than nine tenths of the proceeds of the loan are or were applied to the purchase by the person


or persons to whom it was made of an Annuity ending with his life or with the life of the survivor of two or more persons (in this section referred to as "the Annuitants") who include the person or persons to whom the loan is made;
(b) that at the time the loan is made the person to whom it is made or each of the Annuitants had attained the age of 65 years; and
(c) that the person or persons to whom the loan is made or each of the Annuitants uses the land on which it is secured as his only residence.

(2) The borrower or borrowers may by notice in writing to the lender in such form as the Ministry may direct (in this section referred to as an "Option Mortgage") elect that the loan shall be subsidised in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 and the Option Notice shall be treated for all purposes as if it were an Option Notice made under the provisions of section 24 of the said Act.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
The amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof tabled by the Secretary of State for the Environment:

'Subsidised loans—further application of Part II of 1967 Act

(1) In relation to a loan which satisfies the two conditions stated in subsections (2) and (3) below Part II of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 shall have effect as if the loan were for or in connection with one or more of the purposes specified in section 24(1)(b) of that Act.

(2) The first condition is that the loan—

(a) is made as part of a scheme under which not less than nine-tenths of the proceeds of the loan are applied to the purchase by the person or persons to whom it is made of an annuity—

(i) ending, if the loan is made to one person, with his life or with the life of the survivor of two or more persons who include that person, and
(ii) ending, if the loan is made to more than one person, with the life of the survivor of two or more persons who include the persons to whom the loan is made; or

(b) was made under such a scheme before the commencement of this section.

(3) The second condition is that each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) above has attained the age of sixty-five years at the time the loan is made (or) if the loan was made before the commencement of this section, had attained that age at the time the loan was made).'.

Government consequential amendment in page 94, line 25, after '109', insert 'to'.

Mr. Stanley: I announced on 29 July in a reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) that the Government accepted the principle of the new clause agreed to in another place. In the light of the argument advanced during the proceedings both on this Bill and on the Social Security Bill the Government have decided that the option mortgage scheme should be extended to provide additional income to elderly non-taxpaying owner-occupiers who buy an annuity on the security of their home. This will help them to remain longer in their homes, which is the wish of the great majority of them.
The amendment that was carried in another place is incompatible with the statutory framework of the option mortgage scheme. The Government amendment is essentially a technical measure that will further the intention of the Lords amendment.
The consequential amendment ensures that the provision applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. I believe that the alteration to the option mortgage scheme will be widely welcomed among the considerable number of low-income owner-occupiers who are seeking to supplement their income so that they may remain in the homes that they own.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Like so many in this place and in another place, I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for accepting this proposition. However, it has been said that the date on which it can come into force after the Bill has received Royal Assent may be in question. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will tell the House when we may expect this provision to be effective after the Bill has become law.

Mr. Stanley: I am not able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) a precise answer now. There are a number of quite complicated technical arrangements that need to be made before this facet of the scheme can be extended. I assure him that we want to bring it into operation as rapidly as possible and that we shall work to that end.

Mr. Ted Graham: We have reached a stage where we wonder


into which precise category the Government's attitude may be placed. Is it to be placed in the "half a loaf" category or the "discretion is the better part of valour" category? There is no doubt that the Government's attitude in accepting gracefully that which was moved in another place is a substantial change in the attitude that was evinced by their spokesman in another place on more than one occasion. The Government having advanced their argument time after time and subsequently having made a substantial U-turn, we are entitled to a debate and an explanation.
First, we are entitled to say that the amendment that was moved in another place had the support of all the Benches in that place. There was support from the Liberal Benches. I pay tribute to the part played by Lord Banks to support that formidable trio of Ladies Vickers, Faithfull and Phillips. The support that came in another place had all-party support and that must be acknowledged.
It must also be acknowledged that the Government's acceptance of the principle that is enshrined in their amendment in lieu thereof is a major tribute to the tenacity of two responsible and respectable organisations—namely, Help the Aged and Age Concern. They were tenacious in their attempts to obtain equity in other legislation for the group of elderly citizens that we are discussing. They have been persistent. They will be delighted with the result of their efforts.
9.30 pm
We are entitled to remind the House and those affected by the Bill of the present position, and of the effect of the changes. An elderly person who owns his own home, and who has an inadequate income, can supplement his income by raising a mortgage in order to purchase an annuity. From that annuity, he pays interest on the mortgage. The balance of the annuity provides the extra income. It is right that those who pay tax should enjoy tax relief on mortgage interest, thus making the arrangements much more attractive to them than to non-taxpayers. When the Minister acknowledged the amendment from the other place he failed to mention not only that it had been carried but that it had been carried by a substantial majority, in

House of Lords terms. There were 114 votes in favour of the amendment and 85 votes against. Those who read the proceedings of the other place will know that the figure of 85 represents the type of support that the Government had during most of the proceedings. The figure of 114 was made up of Lords from both sides and by those who sit on the Cross Benches.
The Lords amendment and the Government amendment seek to extend to non-taxpayers the option mortgage arrangements that are available to the non-taxpayer, who raises a mortgage to buy his house. The benefit of paying a lower, Government-subsidised rate of interest on a mortgage should be extended to those elderly people who do not pay tax. In the same way, elderly taxpayers get a tax benefit. I was delighted to note the success of Lord Banks. During the debate in the House of Lords, he successfully quoted the words of Lord Carr. All hon. Members are aware that he was an eminent and respected hon. Member. He was once Home Secretary, and a leading member of the Conservative Party. He expressed support for the principles contained in the amendment. The Minister's friends in the other place advanced arguments that have now been reversed. They repeatedly advanced the argument that no general principle stated that tax relief for taxpayers should be matched by subsidies for non-taxpayers. The Government have clearly made a concession to that argument.
The argument was also advanced that option mortgages are designed to encourage home ownership. The amendment would have been a new departure. The Minister appears to have accepted that new departures should be welcomed and that there is nothing wrong in redressing a clear injustice. It was also said that if the amendment were accepted, the effect would be more attractive to non-taxpayers. It was said that taxpayers' money would be used to subsidise a special group. The philosophy of the Conservative Party is to encourage and sustain home ownership. Secondly, the Conservative Party has a special place in its philosophy for looking after the elderly. Thirdly, the Conservative Party continually seeks to maintain its interest in equity. Those three principles were


thrown overboard by the Conservative spokesman in the House of Lords during resistance to the amendment.
The other argument which has now been accepted by the Government is that of cost. A Government spokesman in the other place said that if the amendment that the Government are now moving were accepted, it could cost any-think up to £10 million. Of course, the mover of the successful amendment claimed that at most the amendment might cost £2½ million. It was estabblished quite clearly in the other place that there was likely to be a greater burden on the taxpayer by not assisting elderly non-taxpayers—that is if the concession were not made. We all know that in many instances if the elderly were denied the opportunity of continuing to own their own homes—

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I am a little worried about my hon. Friend's remarks. If he accepts the principle that the subsidy given to taxpayers should now be given to non-taxpayers, will he go further and say that the same subsidy should be given to those elderly constituents of mine who do not own their own homes and who do not have the ability to do so? Are we supporting the principle of the subsidy all the way along the line?

Mr. Graham: With respect, the argument here relates to those who own their own homes or who wish to own their own homes and who are elderly. At present those who are not elderly have the opportunity, whatever their circumstances, of taking advantage of the option mortgage. The principle now enshrined in the amendment, and previously resisted by the Government, is that the benefit of the option mortgage, open at present to those who are not elderly, should be extended to the elderly who are non-taxpayers and for whom the option mortgage is the best arrangement. I am grateful to the Minister for having indicated that the technical defects in the Lords amendment have now been put right in the amendment before us.

Mr. Durant: Is the hon. Member aware that during the period of the Labour Government this proposal was moved in various Finance Bills in the

other place and that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) raised the very points that have been raised by his party in opposition to the principle behind this matter? I am delighted that the hon. Member has seen fit to welcome it, but his party was not too keen when it was in government.

Mr. Graham: The clearest indication of why the Government have finally accepted the amendment has been the campaign waged, not merely by hon. Members on both sides of this House but of those in another place as well. Also because of the effects of inflation, not least during the past 18 months, there has been a growing case to be made out for the benefits of the option mortgage for the non-taxpaying elderly who are buying their homes. Very late in the day, the Government, despite resisting the arguments in another place, have come before us tonight with an acceptable form of words. In view of the fact that the Government have accepted the principle and will put the matter right, I have pleasure in urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept the Government amendment.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill in lieu thereof:

'Subsidised loans—further application of Part II of 1967 Act

(1) In relation to a loan which satisfies the two conditions stated in subsections (2) and (3) below Part II of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 shall have effect as if the loan were for or in connection with one or more of the purposes specified in section 24(1)(b) of that Act.

(2) The first condition is that the loan—

(a) is made as part of a scheme under which not less than nine-tenths of the proceeds of the loan are applied to the purchase by the person or persons to whom it is made of an annuity—

(i) ending, if the loan is made to one person, with his life or with the life of the survivor of two or more persons who include that person, and
(ii) ending, if the loan is made to more than one person, with the life of the survivor of two or more persons who include the persons to whom the loan is made; or

(b) was made under such a scheme before the commencement of this section.

(3) The second condition is that each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) above has attained the age of sixty-five years at the time the loan is made (or, if the loan was made before the commencement of this section, had attained that age at the time the loan was made).'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Several Hon Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We have already discussed this and I am putting the Question now. [Interruption.] I do not understand why hon. Members remain standing when I am on my feet. I am sorry if I have misunderstood the House. I am not trying to deny anyone his rights. If hon. Members wish to speak to this amendment in lieu I will allow them to do so.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. We have become so deferential to you during today that I was hesitant to stand when you were standing. Because of that, the desire of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and I to speak was almost overlooked.
I wish to speak not only on the amendment in lieu but on the proposition that the House doth disagree with the Lords in their amendment. One of the myths is that the Conservative Party believes in home ownership and that the Labour Party seeks to deny home ownership to millions of people. The records of the parties since the war make it clear that the only party which has taken positive steps to extend the opportunity for people to purchase their own homes is the Labour Party.

Mr. David Alton: In view of the fulsome praise by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) of my noble Friend Lord Banks, who ensured that the amendment came before the House tonight, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) should say that the Labour Party is the only party which encourages home ownership. I hope that he will join in the fulsome praise of my noble Friend.

Mr. Straw: There was no inconsistency, simply the omission of an adjective. I meant to say that the Labour Party was the only major party which sought to extend home ownership. In its heyday the Liberal Party, some years before the hon. Gentleman was born, also assisted in that aim. I hear Government Members laughing at the proposition. The Labour Party has taken positive steps to extend home ownership.
Finance Acts provide that interest payable on the purchase of a home is eligible for relief against tax. That provision has been in operation since before the war.

What other changes have been made to assist people to buy their own homes? The most important is the provision of the option mortgage scheme which appeared in the 1964 Labour Party manifesto and which was implemented in 1967. That provision is aimed at lower income families who do not have the full benefit of tax relief. That was the first important improvement which the Labour Party made towards assisting home ownership.
The second improvement was the provision to assist first-time buyers. Under the last Government loan and grant schemes were introduced to assist first-time buyers.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that neither measure that he has mentioned would have been necessary had his party not invented inflation?

Mr. Straw: The Labour Party did not invent inflation. Even the Prime Minister has not had the audacity to claim that. Had the hon. Gentleman any knowledge of history he would know that before the Conservative or Labour Party came into existence inflation at times ran riot. In the fourteenth century, as a result of the plague, there was great inflation. Before my party was established in its present form there was great inflation as a result of the First World War. Although the Conservative Party may not have invented inflation, it has ensured that it has proceeded apace. The Government have doubled VAT and the rate of inflation in only 15 months.
9.45 pm
It is time the Conservative Party woke up to Labour's contribution to home ownership and improving the nation's housing conditions.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: I am listening closely and with interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is an effrontery to claim that his party has contributed to home ownership. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said that he would like to wipe out the opportunity for council tenants to purchase their houses. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is disgraceful for his party to try to make council tenants second-class citizens because they cannot buy their homes?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady has no conception of the important contribution that council housing has made to the housing situation.

Mr. Major: In the past.

Mr. Straw: It is continuing to do so. The development of council housing has transformed the housing condition of this nation and made us one of the best-housed nations in Europe.
I have experience of council housing. I lived in a council house until I was married. My family was able to move out of two privately rented rooms and at least live in accommodation that was dry and large enough for a family of five and my parents because of council housing. Conservative Members should give us no lectures about the importance of council housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is right to pledge Labour to repeal this damaging and obnoxious legislation. It will undermine the opportunity of local authorities to house those in need of housing in the way that my parents were housed in 1952, albeit by a pretty reactionary Conservative council.
Local authority housing stock will be denuded by the so-called right to buy, and in years to come waiting lists will grow longer. We do not say that no tenant in no circumstance should have the right to buy, but we believe that the decision should be left to local authorities, which know the housing needs in their areas. We also firmly believe that discounts of this size should not be given.
I return to owner-occupation. Because Labour believes in meeting the housing needs of the whole nation, whether through rented accommodation or owner-occupation, we have sought to increase and improve the public rented sector, while encouraging those who can do so to buy homes in the private sector. That is why we introduced the option mortgage scheme and schemes to provide assistance to first-time purchasers. That is why we support the scheme that my noble Friend Lady Birk and other Labour peers helped to push through. It extends the assistance that we have always supported.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, by the time people had saved enough to buy a house under the previous

Labour Government, the price of the house had escalated so much that they could no longer afford to buy it?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady has a selective memory. One of the major reasons why the Conservative Party lost the election of February 1974 was the astonishing rise in house prices between 1970 and 1974. House prices were doubling within a year.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that Labour Governments have done far more than any other party for the extension of home ownership. We are not opposed to owner-occupation. Indeed, many of the measures that Labour Governments have introduced, some of which my hon. Friend has alluded to, have been designed specifically to assist owner-occupation.
We are opposed to the compulsory and indiscriminate sale of council assets, which will lead to a reduction in the quality and quantity of housing stock, to the disadvantage of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are back on Second Reading points. The hon. Gentleman is wasting time. If he wishes to talk about the amendment, he had better do so.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The only point that I wanted to make to my hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue an intervention that was out of order. He was making a Second Reading point.

Mr. Straw: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to invite my hon. Friend to intervene again.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The point that my hon. Friend could have made to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is that the greatest current inhibition to owner-occupation is the dramatic and unprecedented level to which interest rates have risen as a result of the Government's economic policies.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I intended to refer to after dealing with the record of the Conservative Government between 1970 and 1973.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) asked my hon.
Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) whether it was right to agree to the extension of tax relief as set out in the amendment when elderly people in council accommodation would not have such tax relief.
I understand that point, but I believe that we should act fairly between all owner-occupiers. That was the reason why we introduced the option mortgage scheme. Wage earners on low incomes were not able to benefit from tax relief to the full extent and the option mortgage scheme provided compensation.
Similarly, those with sufficient income could obtain tax relief if they entered into the sort of annuity arrangement that has been described. The amendment provides that those with a lower income should have the same benefit, in relation to tax relief, as if they had a sufficient income to get that relief.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend agree that the elderly people who are to have the option mortgage scheme, and therefore tax relief, extended to them probably received tax relief when they were younger and buying their first home? His argument that they must get tax relief in the same way that a taxpayer would does not hold water.
Will my hon. Friend explain what other subsidy is given to any other category who are not taxpayers? When do we say that taxpayers receive a subsidy because they are taxpayers, but that because another category does not receive it because they are not taxpayers we must give them some other form of subsidy? Where is the equity in that?

Mr. Straw: The elderly living in rented accommodation receive rent rebates if they are in public sector accommodation and rent allowances if they are in private sector accommodation. Equity is involved there. Given the present structure of reliefs available for rent allowances and rent rebates for rented accommodation, and tax reliefs for the elderly with sufficient income in private accommodation, it would be inequitable to exclude the lower income category seeking an annuity arrangement.
My hon. Friend's first point was whether it was genuinely equitable for those who had enjoyed tax relief in the

past to enjoy it again. That raises an interesting question whether tax relief on the purchase of homes should be restricted, for example, to a 20-year period in a person's life, and should not be repeated. There are strong social and economic grounds for that. In the long term the major benefit of existing tax reliefs is not to the individual because the tax reliefs are capitalised in the capital values of the properties.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Surely my hon. Friend cannot be right. Is it not the case that every man and woman pays taxes? They pay VAT and other taxes. They cannot get out of that. Young families with children receive child allowances, and the elderly pay taxes, although they do not have any children. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the elderly should not contribute to the child allowance?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I would not dream of answering for my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk concerning his suggestion. Despite the respect and esteem in which I hold him, he must speak for himself. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is right to say that everybody pays taxes in one form or another. But we are concerned with the reliefs available through the payment of income tax. The value of such reliefs clearly depends on the size of an individual's income.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton I am glad that the proposal was moved in substance in another place, and passed against the advice of the Government. I am glad also that on this relatively minor matter the Government have had the grace to return to the Commons, without having to be pushed by the Opposition, with an alternative which is almost acceptable. I commend it to the House.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I wish to make it clear that I have no intention of speaking about council housing. It may come as a surprise to the House to know that council housing has nothing to do with the amendment that we are discussing. Neither do I propose to engage for any length of time in a Dutch auction about which party has in the past been more beneficial to owner-occupation.
I propose to concentrate my attention wholly on the original amendment from another place, and on the words that now appear on the Order Paper. Although I take nothing away from those responsible for passing the amendment in another place, I wish to place on record the fact that in the 10 years that I have been in the House I have constantly pressed successive Governments to include the elderly in the option mortgage system. It is a great pleasure for me this evening to find some reward—although I should have preferred my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the proposal when I pressed him no later than June of this year, rather than wait for an amendment to be passed in another place.
10 pm
However, there seems to be a misconception running through the House. We are not talking about elderly people buying their properties. We are talking about elderly people who already own their properties and who wish to sell their properties, to take a loan upon them and, with the proceeds of the loan, to effect an annuity, and who are prevented from doing that at present because there is no taxable income to offset against the interest that has to be paid on the loan.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) made certain that there would be a debate on this subject. I could have wished, however, that during his contribution he had cast a little more clarification on the Opposition's thinking on the matter and, most particularly, that he had made clear what this scheme is not, as well as what it is. Unless this debate is publicised, there is a serious danger that it will be assumed that this is a new clause that is universally advantageous to all elderly people. I place clearly on record that that is not so. There are undoubtedly powerful reasons why we should introduce the new clause this evening. For example, it is one ideal way of sustaining the independence of elderly people. Secondly, it is a way of using their principal, sometimes their only, asset, whereas otherwise it may lie dormant. Thirdly, it is a method of improving their standard of living in the later days of their lives without having to resort to social security, which is anathema to many of the people about whom I am talking.
Those are the points in its favour, but it is not for everyone. For example, if there are relatives who are confidently expecting the property to be their sole inheritance and would be put out at any suggestion that that property were to be sold effectively over their heads, it cannot be advised as a suitable scheme for elderly people in these circumstances. Even there, however, I have found in the past that where that becomes evident, the sons and daughters are frequently moved to assist the elderly people to boost their income, so that the house that is to be inherited by sons or daughters remains intact.
In these circumstances considerable care has to be directed before it is decided that this is a desirable scheme.
Secondly, it is not as easy as saying "I shall sell my house to an insurance company or to a financial institution, and I shall take an annuity on it to boost my income". The market for this sort of home reversionary plan is very limited. One of the disadvantages is that in taking the loan from an insurance company or an institution the annuity tends to be tied to the same insurance company or institution, and that need not necessarily mean that the individual is getting the best deal.
I hope that as a result of this change in the law that we are here enacting, more institutions will come into the market and we shall have rather more schemes under which the financial institution giving the loan on the property leaves the person free to search for the best annuity available in the market.
I have heard reference to high interest rates and the disadvantage to owner-occupiers. Perhaps I should say that if there is one area in which high interest rates are of enormous advantage it is that of purchased annuities. So here we are doing something for elderly people that has not been possible to do previously, which is advantageous on two fronts.
The other point is that the elderly people to whom these schemes will apply should be rather wary. I speak as one who has been in the field and knows that many opportunities are available for attracting business from such elderly people. I also know that there are many people in the field—let us call them salesmen—who are not always on the level in


introducing these schemes to the elderly people. Not only do I suggest a careful shopping around for the correct scheme for the elderly person but I also believe that the elderly person concerned would be well advised to seek professional advice.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Really.

Mr. McCrindle: My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) says "Really". If he does not feel it wise to accept the best advice on where the best return on the money can be obtained, he astonishes me.
It is a good thing to have this breakthrough. I wish it had been done a long time ago, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for doing it. It is not a total panacea. There are considerable pitfalls for some people. I felt that I should point to some of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Consequential amendment: In page 94, line 25, after '109', insert 'to'.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 118 to 121 agreed to.

Clause 117

CONSENT OF HOUSING CORPORATION TO DISPOSALS OF LAND BY HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS AND TRUSTS

Lords amendment: No. 122 in page 82, line 37, at end insert "any of paragraphs 2 to 7 of"

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a minor amendment, which means that the Housing Corporation's consent will be required before a registered housing association can grant a long lease of a dwelling in Scotland. The bill already requires the corporation's consent to be obtained for such disposals in England and Wales. The Government have decided that it would be sensible to put the disposals on the same footing whether they take place north or south of the border.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 118

ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Lords amendment: No. 123, in page 83, line 24, leave out "and balance sheet"

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 124 to 128, 173 to 178.

Mr. Finsberg: This is a formidable looking list, but the amendments are simply technical amendments that recognise the fact that the word "accounts" is in itself sufficient to cover "balance sheet", and the latter is therefore unnecessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 124 to 128 agreed to.

New Clause G

REMOVAL OF CERTAIN HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS FROM REGISTER

Lords amendment: No. 129, after clause 121, in page 85, line 42, at end insert
G.—(1) In section 15 of the 1974 Act—

(a) after subsection (2) there is inserted the subsection set out below; and
(b) in subsection (6) for the words "this section" there are substituted the words "subsection (2) above".

(2) The subsection inserted after subsection (2) is:—
(2A) Where a body which is registered—

(a) has not at any time received a grant under section 29 or section 32 below or any such payment or loan as is specified in paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to this Act; and
(b) requests the Corporation to remove it from the register;

the Corporation may, if they think fit, remove it from the register."

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment covers the Housing Corporation. As the House knows, the Housing Corporation has only narrow powers of deregistering housing associations under the Housing Act 1974. These, in effect, apply only when an association is no longer operating as such. The sort of


circumstances in which these new powers of voluntary deregistration would be of benefit mainly involve housing associations whose registration has always been unnecessary or inappropriate.
When the 1974 Act first came into effect, as many hon. Members will recall, the corporation registered a number of associations, which continue to exist but whose activities are untypical of those of a registered housing association. Such associations will not have received public money in the form of housing association grant and have probably never had any intention of applying for grant. Their registration often stems from a lack of understanding of the purpose of registration in the early days of the Act. They remain on the register simply for want of a power to remove them. This clause enables associations that have not received public money to be deregistered with the corporation's consent. That consent is necessary to ensure, for instance, that an association does not deregister merely in order to avoid an inquirey into its affairs.

Mr. Kaufman: We do not challenge this unexceptionable amendment, but it raises a question. As the Under-Secretary said, it lays down functions for the Housing Corporation to carry out. What I want to know is whether there will be a Housing Corporation to carry out those functions. There are rumours in the newspapers that the Government are considering the corporation's future and are indeed considering winding it up. I believe that this is a suitable occasion for a Government spokesman to assure us that this is not an otiose amendment, in the sense that there will be a Housing Corporation, that it will continue its activities and existing responsibilities, and that the very important functions of, among other things, registering and maintaining the probity of the housing association movement will continue.
I look forward to receiving an assurance that the Government have no intention of abolishing the corporation.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I should have thought that above most other hon. Members, with his extensive experience of the media, the right hon. Gentleman would not believe every rumour that he hears. The Housing Corporation was set up by Act of Parliament and is doing a valuable

job. If the Government contemplated any change they would inform the House.
The position is simply that we have provided in the amendment, as in other amendments, for certain functions to be carried out by the corporation, and we have no present intention of disbanding it.

Mr. Kaufman: I am very grateful for what the Under-Secretary says. It was not a question of my believing the rumours; it was the fact that they were circulating and that this was a useful opportunity to obtain from the Government the specific commitment that the hon. Gentleman has given, which we welcome, that they have no intention of disbanding the Housing Corporation, and that therefore it will continue its valuable activities, including its very important role of supervising and maintaining the probity of the housing association movement.

Mr. William Hamilton: I ask my right hon. Friend to read carefully what the Minister said, which was that the Government had "no present intention" of dealing with the Housing Corporation. That is very different from a specific guarantee to keep it in being.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 124

RECOUPMENT OF SURPLUS RENTAL INCOME

Lords amendment: No. 130, in page 87, line 21, leave out from "date" to "as" in line 22 and insert—
but not earlier than the end of the period of account

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Under the clause as drafted the Secretary of State may demand interest on surpluses accumulating in the grant redemption funds at rates to be decided by him for any period beginning up to 12 months before he serves a notice on a particular association to direct the use of the surpluses. However, this carries a risk that associations will be charged interest for a period during which they had no knowledge that interest would be payable, or at what rate. Clearly that is


not a satisfactory position for them to be put into.
I believe that the amendment puts matters right. In practice, my right hon. Friend intends to make a general announcement in advance of the rate at which interest on surpluses arising will become payable where those surpluses remain in the funds after the end of the accounting period in which they were generated. When the Secretary of State subsequently gives a notice to an individual association to direct the use of its surpluses, the amendment provides that the earliest date from which interest will be payable is the end of the accounting period. The amendment therefore removes the risk of associations incurring unknown liabilities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 126

INTERPRETATION OF PART VIII

Lords amendment: No. 131, in page 88, line 11, after "Act" insert
or, as the case may be, section 208(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966".

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment inserts the Scottish definition of a housing association into this clause, which is the interpretation clause of part VIII. The definition is almost identical to that for England and Wales, which appears in the clause.
Since most of part VIII applies to Scotland, it is clearly necessary to include the Scottish definition. I hope that the House will accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 132 and 133 agreed to.

New Clause H

AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN UNAUTHORISED DISPOSALS

Lords amendment: No. 134, after clause 129, in page 90, line 10, at end insert—
H.—(1) If—

(a) at any time after 18th July 1980 a local authority or a housing association has disposed of a house; and

(b) the disposal was one which, under section 104 of the 1957 Act or section 2 of the 1974 Act, required the consent of the Secretary of State or of the Housing Corporation (or would have required it had the relevant provisions been in force) but was made without that consent;

then, unless the disposal was to an individual (or to two or more individuals) and did not extend to any other house, it shall be void (and, if made before the passing of this Act, be deemed always to have been void) and section 128(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 or, as the case may be, subsection (5A) (inserted by section 117(6) of this Act) of section 2 of the 1974 Act (protection of purchasers) shall not apply.
(2) In this section "house" includes a flat and "the relevant provisions" means Part I and sections 87 and 117 of this Act.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
During the passage of this Bill Parliament has expressed its clear will that secure tenants of local authorities and certain housing associations should have the right to buy their homes. The Bill sets out a clear procedure for doing that. It is intended that that procedure should be exercised with legal certainty by the tenants concerned.
We have been urged on many occasions—though only by my right hon. and hon. Friends—to ensure that there are no legal devices by which those whom Parliament intends should have the right to buy can be denied that right. We have taken that urging seriously, not least because of certain statements made by the Opposition. We noted the statement by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on 21 February in Committee. He said that the Conservative Party regarded itself as being bound by the letter of the legislation but not by its spirit.
The basic purpose of this new clause is to ensure that no landlord should—

Mr. Straw: Since the Minister is criticising the position taken by the Opposition, can he explain why there was active backing from the Prime Minister and other Ministers to get local authorities such as Berkshire and Oxfordshire to take the previous Labour Government to court to try to find as many loopholes as possible in their comprehensive schools legislation?

Mr. Stanley: I shall not criticise the right hon. Member for Ardwick. I hope


that, equally, he will not criticise me for bringing forward the new clause.
The basic purpose of the clause is to ensure that no landlord should be able to succeed in frustrating the right to buy by disposing of some or all of his housing to some other body to whom the right to buy does not apply. The Bill, in some cases by amendment of prior legislation, provides for a comprehensive requirement for ministerial consent both to the disposal of part V houses and land and also to the disposal of land and houses by registered housing associations.
This consent requirement is needed in order to simplify the present law. It is also needed to ensure that tenants whom Parliament intends to have the right to buy shall not be deprived of that right as a result of disposals to other bodies to whom the right does not apply.
However, as it stands, section 128 of the local Government Act 1972 has the effect that if a disposal takes place without necessary consent the person to whom it is made still gets valid title. The Bill makes similar provision in respect of housing association disposals in clause 121. We have come to the conclusion, therefore, that as the Bill stands, the rights of tenants are not yet adequately protected.
The new clause deals with the problem by providing that a disposal that takes place without ministerial consent will be void. In other words, it will be as if the disposal had not taken place, thereby ensuring that tenants will still have their right to buy. The important exception is made to deal with the case where an individual makes a single purchase of a house or flat. It is possible that an authority would sell or lease a house or flat and do so without consent, unwittingly, because it had not conformed with the terms of an available consent. Such a disposal would clearly not subvert the right to buy, and it is clearly right to protect the position of the individual purchaser in such cases.
The new clause also deals with a gap in the present requirements for ministerial consent for the disposal of part V council houses, that is, the requirements that apply until the relevant part of the Bill comes into force.
Under the present law, the consent requirements may not cover all possible

disposals. We are not prepared to see the right to buy taken away from tenants by any landlord who seeks to make such a disposal in the short time that the Government hope remains before enactment. Therefore, the new clause provides that such a disposal would also be void. We must ensure that individual tenants have the rights that Parliament intends them to have and that those rights are not taken away. These provisions have that purpose. They apply only to transactions after the new clause was tabled in another place.
The Department and the Welsh Office have already written to all local authorities warning them of the new clause. The Housing Corporation has written similarly to housing associations.
The new clause is essential to protect the interests of tenants from any landlord who may attempt to use this legal device to deny tenants the right to buy. I hope that it will be agreed to.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the Minister for quoting my words in Committee because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate them now. The Opposition have made it clear that they will repeal the compulsory sale of council houses on their return to office. However, while the law is in force, we shall accept it. We shall oppose this provision within the law. We shall not in any way seek to have the law broken. I made that clear on many occasions in Committee, and I am glad to take this opportunity to repeat it, because it is important to emphasise that all parties in the House should accept the law as it is made by Parliament. If Ministers have some intention, it is not the duty of the citizen to obey that intention; it is the duty of the citizen to accept the law. That is what I made clear, and I am grateful to the Minister for having said that. Any local authority that can find ways of not carrying out this law, while not breaking it, will certainly have the compliments of the Opposition.
I should like to make two points on the new clause. First, it shows that the Government have some kind of obsessessive mistrust of local authorities. In Committee we were assured that Ministers were confident that the reserve powers in clause 22 would not have to be used, but they are now sticking their fingers into what they think are holes in the dyke.
The Minister, with his zealous, clever, dutiful and agreeable officials, has been putting bits of sticking plaster all over the Bill since January. More than 500 bits of sticking plaster are stuck all over the Bill. The Minister may find that those bits of sticking plaster do not fill all the gaps in the Bill. It may be that he would have liked another stage—perhaps a third House of Parliament—to put through a further 200 or 300 amendments to improve the situation still further. We do not like the new clause for that reason. But for a Department that has to deal with local authorities, it seems obnoxious that the motivating thought should be that local authorities are not to be trusted.
The reason why I particularly do not like this provision is that it is retrospective. It will go back a number of weeks and cover events that will have taken place before Royal Assent. The Minister, when referring to remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) about the £100 option, for example, accused him of wishing to legislate retrospectively on that matter. Yet the Government are legislating retrospectively in order to require local authorities to be relieved of public possessions.
I should also like some information from the Minister, because it is not clear to me what disposals are covered. I pluck an example at random from my constituency, of the Birch housing co-operative, which is anxious for Manchester City Council to sell it a small number of houses for its co-operative, which it can then modernise and turn into habitable dwellings. Under the Bill that is possible for an individual, and a sale to an individual is not prohibited by this new clause. I shall be interested to know the position of a sale to a housing co-operative.
I have written to the chairman of the Housing Corporation—which I am pleased will remain in existence long enough for him to be able to reply to me officially—about this co-operative. I should also be interested to know what will happen when a local authority sells to a housing association in order that the housing association can sell on to a housing co-operative, the housing corporation having carried out the modernisation

work. I take a moment to pay tribute to the Minister for his knowledge of the Bill. I wish that it were matched by flexibility in policy, but we cannot always hope for that.
It would be helpful if we could be assured that worthy, small co-operatives in inner city areas were not prohibited from their activities, even in the short period that remains before the Bill is enacted, or, indeed, afterwards, The Minister knows that many inner city areas have problems such as those of Manchester. I do not apologise to the House for using an example in my constituency in order to draw attention to a general point. It will be helpful if the Minister will provide an answer to that question in his reply. I should add, almost in passing, that we shall of course vote against the amendment.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) criticised this amendment as being retrospective. Although I do not often pray in aid nationalisation legislation, if he looks at the Labour Government's Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, with which he was so intimately associated, he will note that it included a provision that rendered null and void anything that took place in the companies concerned after the date of publication of the legislation. That thought struck us when we considered how to deal with the problem.
On the specific point of disposals, the effect of the amendment is not to prohibit disposals but to ensure that where the consent of the Secretary of State is required for a disposal, that consent is obtained. If it is not obtained the purchaser will not obtain valid title. There would be nothing to stop a disposal by a local authority to a housing association, which could then be the subject of further disposal, but disposal by a local authority needs the consent of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Straw: As I understand from what the Minister said earlier, section 128 of the Local Government Act 1972 was so worded that where a mistake was made and a local authority had failed to gain consent, it did not affect a bona fide purchaser. Will the Minister explain the position of a bona fide purchaser who purchases more than two dwellings from


a local authority which has failed to gain consent as a result of a mistake? Will that innocent purchaser fail to gain title as a result of this amendment?

Mr. Stanley: Some important points of law are involved, and if my reply is not in any way correct I shall writer further to the hon. Gentleman. All local authorities were alerted to the new requirements in the legislation from the date on which it was tabled in another place. It has been made clear that consent is required. I hope that all local authority housing associations are clearly aware of that. If consent is not obtained and the disposal is not to an individual, the purchaser would not get valid title.

Mr. Kaufman: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will deal with the question of—

It being half-past Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 159.

See Division 450

in column 1089

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I now have to put the Question on the motion to agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments up to and including No. 145.

Lords amendments Nos. 135 to 145 agreed to.

Schedule 1

EXCEPTIONS TO RIGHT TO BUY

Lords amendment: No. 146, in page 95, line 19, leave out from "dwelling-house" to end of line 23 and insert
is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons of pensionable age ".

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I shall wish to move a maunscript in lieu of the Lords amendment, in schedule 1, page 95, line 23, at end insert—
5. The landlord has, within six weeks of the service on it of a notice claiming to exercise the right to buy the dwelling-house, applied to the Secretary of State for a determination under this paragraph, and the Secretary of State has determined that the right to buy is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house; and he shall so determine if satisfied—

(a) that the dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and
(b) that it is the practice of the landlord to let it only for occupation by such persons.

As my right hon. Friend made clear earlier today, the Government have agreed to accept the intention of the amendment passed in the other place and to exclude from the right to buy those dwellings that are designed or adapted for elderly people—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear"]—and that it is the practice of landlords to let to the elderly. We have, however, accepted the amendment so that these dwellings, and only these dwellings are excluded, and at the same time scope is not provided for excluding tenants from the right to buy if the dwellings are not in the particular category of dwellings covered by the amendment.
For that reason, a local authority will have to apply to the Secretary of State within six weeks of service of the right to buy notice, if it wants to exclude a dwelling under this provision.
10.45 pm
Just as conditions are placed on the way in which the local authority must operate, so there is also a clear obligation placed on the Secretary of State. He will not be able to withhold giving a determination if he is satisfied that the application relates to a dwelling that falls within the terms of the paragraph. The amendment provides that in those circumstances he shall so determine.
The House will wish to know what sort of dwelling is likely to be covered by this provision. The paragraph will apply to any dwelling-house that is designed or specially adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age and that it is the practice of the landlord to let only to such persons. That definition is taken from the amendment made in another place, with the addition of the word


"only". That addition is based on an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), which we thought was an improvement.
In practice we envisage that the amendment will extend the provisions in the Bill, as introduced in this House, to exclude a further category of dwelling for the elderly from the right to buy. The original provision in the Bill was intended to exclude what is widely known as sheltered accommodation for the elderly. That is the kind of dwelling that falls within what is known as category 2 for the purposes of granting subsidy. In essence the amendment extends the exclusions to what are known as category 1 dwellings for subsidy purposes.
The type of dwelling for which a determination would be made would be, for example, a bungalow specially designed for an elderly person. However, it would not be made for an ordinary dwelling that happened to be occupied by an elderly person. The amendment that we shall move is based closely on the Lords amendment, with the changes that I have described. It widens the exemptions in the Bill as introduced, to exclude what can broadly be described as all special-purpose accommodation for the elderly. I hope that the manuscript amendment which we have moved will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Kaufman: This is a very important day for Parliament because the amendment that the Minister is to move means that the Government have accepted the will of Parliament—not of one party but of many parties and of no party. They have accepted the will of all those who have felt strongly about this issue. When Parliament expresses its will, even a Government with a majority as large as this one, must give way.
I pay tribute to my noble Friends in another place who carried the amendment against the Government last month. They worked hard at it. The Minister now says that he accepts the Lords amendment, but when my noble Friends moved it in another place Lord Bellwin told my noble Friend Lady Birk that it was unacceptable, and he spent many minutes explaining why. One can tear up

those pages of Lord Bellwin's speech in Hansard now, because in President Nixon's words "they are now inoperative".
I also wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friends in this House who made the Government concession possible. What they did on Monday night and yesterday made the Government aware of the power of my right hon. and hon. Friends to continue through today and tomorrow. Without that, the Government would not have made the concession. That being so, this is a victory for my noble Friends and my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Parliamentary Labour Party has shown that we are fighting the Government. Most of all, this is a victory for good sense.

Mr. W. Benyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that if we had single Chamber government in Britain it would be impossible for the amendment to be carried?

Mr. Kaufman: That is a hypothesis that might or might not be tested in the future. When I put such questions to the Minister in Committee he said that he was not prepared to answer hypothetical questions.
This is a victory for good sense, because many people of all parties, all persuasions and convictions asked for the amendment. In the House of Lords the Bishop of London begged the Government to grant the amendment. He was supported by other bishops and members of other parties, including former Conservative Ministers.
The Government derided the arguments. I cannot understand why they were so obstinate. It is an issue that might be small numerically but in social and human terms it is a large issue. It has spanned parties. In moving the amendment the Government agree that the judgment of local authorities should be accepted. The Government are accepting the judgment of local authorities and are placing a requirement upon the Secretary of State to accept their judgment.
Of course we accept the amendment. We are glad that the exclusion will be included in the Bill and that such houses will not be sold under compulsion. The day will come when no local authority houses will have to be sold. That day


cannot come too soon. Meanwhile, we welcome the amendment and support it.

Mr. Bobin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for the amendment. It avoids the potential abuses of the amendment carried in another place while achieving the substance which many of us in all parts of the House wish to be achieved. There was a defect in some of the earlier arguments, in that the relief that would have been granted would have been applicable to groups of old people's bungalows where there was, for instance, a warden in attendance. That applies to towns, but certainly it does not apply to villages that have only a few old people's bungalows.
The form in which the Government have drafted the amendment will achieve what many of us wish to achieve without opening the door to the abuses that could have been used to circumvent the major provisions of the Bill in a spurious manner. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the drafting of the amendment and thank the Government for introducing it.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I am worried that we might be on the verge of congratulating the Opposition on a confidence trick. The amendment uses the word "only". The regular practice in my part of the country, where there are a number of old people's houses, is that occasionally they are let to single-parent families or to someone else who at that time has a good argument for being on the housing list. I should like to know exactly how the word "only" will be applied. If the person asking to buy an old folk's flat can produce evidence that in the past five years one has been let to a single parent for two or three weeks or a couple of months, would that pre-empt the clause and invalidate the exercise? If so, I am doubtful whether we should so readily accept it.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: When the Bill came from the Lords it was perfectly plain from reading the amendment that the Minister was right in being prepared to reject it. It would have been easy to drive a coach and horses through the Bill. By introducing small amendments it would have been easy to say that the accommodation could have been let to persons other than old people. Further, there was no provision that the accommodation would be

let only to persons of pensionable age. Those of us who have a large number of old people's homes in our constituencies, which are especially designed for the purpose and usually but not only let for such purpose, were in that difficulty.
For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), myself and others considered it necessary to include a provision which has been ably drafted by the Government, that it is the practice of the landlord to let only for the occupation of such persons. Additionally, there are two clearly defined objectives. The accommodation must be specially designed and adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age and let only to them.
I congratulate the Government with complete sincerity. The amendment has been ably and quickly drafted. They are to be commended.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Sycophant.

Mr. Rees-Davies: No one has called me that before, and are not likely to again. In my 25 years or more in the House I have been the last person to be sycophantic. No one but the hon. Gentleman would ever dare to call me that. My hon. Friends and most hon. Gentlemen know that to call me a sycophant is pure buffoonery.
I told the Government that I wanted to see the amendment effectively redrafted. They achieved the redrafting in effective terms and in a way that retains the principles that they are following. They will also be able to provide what is necessary—that houses especially adapted for the purpose should not be sold and that we have houses that are let only to people of pensionable age.
Happily, both sides of the House support the amendment. I do not criticise the Labour Party for its opposition generally. Indeed, I approve of it. However, the Government have demonstrated ability and flexibility. As a result, the decision is supported by the whole House. The Ministers have recognised the importance of what they are doing. We should for once leave it at that.

11 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer: The occasion should not be allowed to pass with no more than the platitudinous twaddle


uttered by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). The concession was not obtained from the Government by a consensus arrangement; it was won from them by the hard work of a number of Labour Members, with one or two Liberals, behaving as a united and determined Opposition.
We are giving notice to the Government that although they have an overall majority of 50 or 60 they will meet more determined opposition in the next Session, because we shall be representing the people of this country against the oppressive measures of what the Lord Chancellor called an elective dictatorship. That phrase is not used much today. The Lord Chancellor used the expression about the minority Labour Government. What about the present Government, whose Back Benchers have tramped through the Lobbies in support of all sorts of amendments and proposals, including the original provisions in the Bill as they existed before Labour Members got them altered?
The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West talked about the amendment being drafted sensibly as the result of an arrangement reached yesterday. But why is it a manuscript amendment? Why was it not prepared yesterday? Why was it not drafted and printed in the normal way? The reason is that it arises as a result of the pressure exerted by the Opposition Front Bench because of the views expressed by Labour Back Benchers. It was determined opposition, lock, stock and barrel, to the whole of the wretched Bill.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not also appropriate to put on record that the activities engaged in yesterday by certain Labour Back Benchers—never mind what was done in another place—were not the result of any activities by the Gang of Three who have been telling us to fight the Tories? We do it every day and we shall be doing a lot more of it in the next Session.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is correct. It ill behoves Conservative Members to talk about getting drafting alterations. I cannot remember their being thick on the ground yesterday, when we were arguing for parliamentary scrutiny of expenditure of £42 billion. I thought that Parliament

was supposed to exercise scrutiny. I cannot recall the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West's scrutiny of that £42 billion.
It is a matter of concern that paragraph 5(b) of the manuscript amendment refers to:
the practice of the landlord to let it only for occupation by such persons.
If a local authority is to have the full, proper and unfettered discretion that the Tory Front Bench talk about in relation to private education—when it is called freedom of choice—the word "only" should not be included. A local authority should have the opportunity to switch some bungalows, for example, from ordinary dwellings to old person's dwellings if it wishes.
When a Labour Government are returned to office—and that cannot come too soon—we shall have a massive amount of legislation to put through in order to get rid of the pernicious and oppressive legislation that has been put through by the Tory Cabinet and its hacks who troop through the Lobbies. Occasionally, one or two of them abstain and tell their local papers that they are fighting their Government tooth and nail.
I do not think that there has been an occasion on which the Tory hacks of the Back Benches have voted against Government policy and expressed a positive point of view. There is no doubt that there are one or two rumbles and grumbles swelling up from their ranks, but it is nothing compared to the concerned and dedicated opposition that is now swelling up throughout the country, which is being reflected on the Labour Benches, and which will continue to be so reflected.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we are discussing a manuscript amendment, would it be in order for you to accept a manuscript amendment to the manuscript amendment changing the word "only" to the word "normally"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Not being Mr. Speaker, it is not within my power to accept a manuscript amendment.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank the Government for accepting the amendment in its present form. It is exactly the same as the proposal put forward by my city council. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was not correct when he said that the amendment applies mainly to country areas with only one or two dwellings. It applies to certain older cities with ageing populations, which were quick off the ground and built elderly persons' dwellings before the time that the idea of attaching wardens to the dwellings was introduced. They would not have come within any other definition. They have been habitually and historically occupied by the elderly.
In my city only 270 elderly persons' dwellings would come within the definition and therefore not available for sale, but 700 other dwellings would be eligible for sale, which would leave us with an inadequate number of houses for our considerably ageing population. The number of old people in Lancaster is considerably higher than the national average. It is a matter of importance. We are accordingly most grateful to the Minister for agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The question has been raised whether we could delete the word "only". You have ruled that you cannot accept such an amendment. Is it not possible for the House to request Mr. Speaker to return to the Chamber to enable such an amendment to be moved? Although the amendment is an enormous improvement on that which previously existed, it is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Speaker is always available to anybody who wishes to see him on these matters. I believe that one hon. Member has already gone to see him. I checked on the position, and it is not within my power to accept a manuscript amendment.

Mr. W. Benyon: I had not intended to intervene in the debate until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). Nobody could accuse me of being a hack in relation to this piece of legislation. As a signatory to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop),

I welcome the concession that has been made. I wish to repeat a point that I made in an intervention during the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). Whatever is said, and whatever the humbug that we hear from the Opposition, if we have single-Chamber government in Britain it will not be possible to reconsider matters. It must be rubbed home that it does not matter whether it is a Tory or a Labour Government—if we have a single-Chamber Government we could not reconsider matters.
If the Bill had remained as it stood, or if the pre-emption clause originally on the Order Paper had been moved, no Government—whether Tory, Labour, Liberal or Flat Earth—could ever build a custom-built old person's house again. We have made considerable progress in the sensible compromise that has been reached. I congratulate the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Alton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) on having been consistent in raising this point throughout our deliberations on the Bill. He voted against the Government on this question and on other questions. That courage showed also some practical common sense. It was clear that he had had experience of the problems which local authorities will be up against because of the compulsory nature of the Bill.
Again and again we have found that the sheer dogma which the Government have enforced on us through the Bill has taken the place of common sense. I have had to administer a city's housing committee, as chairman, for over a year. It would have placed us in an intolerable position to have to sell property which had been specially built for elderly people or for disabled people at a premium. It would have meant that these properties, which are very few in number and for which there is obviously great need on the part of people who have special problems, could have disappeared out of the local housing stock. That would have meant that people in special need would have gone without the kind of accommodation to which they are entitled.
In some ways, the amendment tries to rectify that. It was an amendment for which Liberal Members pressed on Second Reading. Regrettably, as a party


we did not get the opportunity to press for it in Committee because, as hon. Members will know, the Liberals were excluded from membership of that Committee. That was a matter which we raised repeatedly because we were so disappointed by that exclusion.
However, this sheltered and special accommodation is prized by a local authority. It would be very foolish to allow it just to be sold off without trying to build in adequate safeguards. It is clear that the safeguard in this manuscript amendment is insufficient, because paragraph 5(b) says clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) have said, that it is "only" for occupation by such persons.
Not all property that has been built as sheltered accommodation is necessarily used by people who are elderly. Sometimes, on a short-term basis, for instance, a single-parent family might be moved in, or someone just appearing lower down the housing register might well be moved into a special-category style of accommodation. In that way it would still mean that there would be a loophole through which could flow some properties which had been built specially for people in need. That seems to be the point which the Minister and the Government have accepted in principle. Therefore, I hope that the House will consider replacing the word "only" with the word "normally". That would be one way of ensuring that this abuse does not occur.
In conclusion, I make one other point. It seems that the manuscript amendment demonstrates yet again this incredible act of folly by the Government in taking away decisions of this kind from local authorities and determining on the Floor of this House what we believe to be right in any district of the country regardless of the local circumstances.
I am one of those who believe very strongly in home ownership. My local authority sold off certain categories of council accommodation. We preferred to develop our build-for-sale policies in order to give the maximum opportunity of home ownership and to encourage people out of properties which were rented and into houses for sale. In that way we were able to create more home ownership as well as being able to provide

properties for people in need. Having done that, we still felt that there was a case for some people to get the chance of owning their council homes if they wished. That was a decision taken in local circles by that local authority. But one man's meat is sometimes another man's poison. What might be right in that local authority—the decision taken by local councillors elected by their electorate—is not necessarily right in another part of the country, and anyway, the local councils there might well have been elected on a different mandate altogether.
It seems to me, therefore, that this is just another example of sheer bloody-minded dogma. I am pleased that as a result of a lot of pressure in the House, particularly yesterday, when much feeling on the subject was expressed by Opposition Members, there has been some response. I hope that the Government will not hoodwink the House by pushing through what is not an adequate amendment, but will accept the common sense of replacing "only" by "normally".

Mr. Penhaligon: Will my hon. Friend, as chairman of a housing committee, confirm that it was perhaps not the practice but at least an exception to a general rule that property clearly designated, designed and built for the elderly was occasionally used for other purposes? I cannot see how any other translation of the clause could lead to the conclusion that that would exclude such properties.

Mr. Alton: Of course that is the guts of my argument. There are occasions on which this very expensive and highly desirable property for people who are disabled or elderly is used for people from other categories of housing need. If the amendment goes through in its present form, there will still be a loophole, as a result of which that property can be sold. It will be taken out of the housing market for people in special need and will go for sale to someone with no particular need.
For that reason, it would be wise for the House to reconsider passing the amendment in its present form.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not wish to delay the House, because the argument has


been advanced from both sides of the Chamber. However, I should like to give some personal examples.
I have a close friend, who is aged and living in accommodation specially built for the elderly in my constituency. She has a disabled daughter below pensionable age, who lives with her. Under the amendment, the word "only" would take that house out of the category of protected dwellings. If the word "normally" were used instead there would be protection, because the house is let to a particular aged person. In the way in which my local authority works, that accommodation would normally go to the disabled daughter. It then ceases to be "only" let, and becomes "normally" let. If we allow it to be "normally" let, my constituent and the house are protected. If we leave "only" in the amendment, they are not protected in the way that we desire.
The matter of sheltered housing for the aged has caused more concern than any other matters that have been raised with regard to the sale of council houses.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend has given an instance that could well come up in a court of law. It would be most unfortunate if that case, or any parallel case, became case law and any matter was raised that perhaps went against the general wishes of the House.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may assist the House if I say that Mr. Speaker has accepted a manuscript amendment to leave out "only" and insert "normally ". It is my intention at the correct time to put that amendment to the House. With that knowledge, we may be able to proceed.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said that I was making only a short intervention, and in fact my object was to ascertain Mr. Speaker's decision. Having got it, I shall sit down.

Mr. David Steel: Is it in order for me now to move that amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Can you give me guidance as to when that may be done?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House so wishes, it will disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, the Government manuscript amendment in lieu will be moved formally, and before any decision is reached on that the other amendment will be moved. It will then be put to the vote, and if agreed to will be included in the Government amendment.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not wish to speak at great length, but there is one aspect of the matter of which it might be useful for the House to take note. Slightly less than a week ago I presented a petition on the selling of bungalows. I doubt whether, in the several hundred years of this House's history, Parliament has responded to a petition with the same speed. Therefore, it is only right that on the behalf of the Rotherham borough council I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) and those who encouraged him.
There is one difference between the decision reached by the House today and the request made by the Rotherham local authority in its petition last week—namely, purpose-built accommodation for the handicapped. I hope that the sensible views of local government—and local government should have had a fulsome tribute from my hon. Friend as well as others of my hon. Friends, both here and in another place—will be heeded by the Minister. I hope that in due course the hon. Gentleman will seek to ensure that purpose-built accommodation for the disabled receives rather more consideration than the contemptous way in which the matter has been dealt with by the Government. I hope, too, that the amendment, which represents an improvement, will be acceptable to the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Manuscript amendment to the Bill proposed in lieu thereof, in schedule 1, page 95, line 23, at end insert—
5. The landlord has, within six weeks of the service on it of a notice claiming to exercise the right to buy the dwelling-house, applied to the Secretary of State for a determination under this paragraph, and the Secretary of State has determined that the right to buy is not to he capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house; and he shall so determine if satisfied—

(a) that the dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and


(b) that it is the practice of the landlord to let it only for occupation by such persons.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. Alton: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the manuscript amendment proposed in lieu thereof, in paragraph 5(b), to leave out "only" and insert "normally".
Hon. Members have heard the argument for the amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Manuscript amendment to the manuscript amendment proposed in lieu thereof, in paragraph 5(b), line 2, to leave out "only" and insert "normally".
The Question is, That the amendment—

Mr. David Steel: Before you put the Question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that we shall have the courtesy of a ministerial reply to the points that have been made. It would be quite monstrous for the Minister to sit quiet and have the House vote on it. Surely a reasonable case has been put and we are entitled to an answer to it.

Mr. Stanley: The manuscript amendment, which we brought forward earlier this afternoon, has been the subject of detailed study and discussion. We are satisfied that it fully reflects the intention of the amendment that was agreed in another place.
I assure the House that the situation to which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) referred—which would be a short-term let for a week, or possibly a few weeks, to a single-person family in what would normally be elderly persons' accommodation and which it is the practice to let as elderly persons' accommodation—would be governed by the word "practice", which implies some measure of latitude. If we replaced the word "only" by "normally", it would substantially widen the intention behind the amendment, which is to provide an exclusion for category 1 accommodation and not a basis for excluding accommodation that may regularly be let to people of pensionable and non-pensionable age. That is why the Government do not feel able to accept the Liberal amendment.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government

have changed the wording of the Lords amendment on this matter? Will he also explain whether, if it is the practice of the landlord to let only to people of pensionable age and a house is let to a man aged 65 and his wife who is 59, that would take it out of the exclusion? This is the kind of problem that arises from the inclusion of the word "only". Will the hon. Gentleman amplify the reasons for the introduction of a word that seems to reduce the effect of the Lords amendment for no reasonable purpose?

Mr. Stanley: Inevitably, there is no way in which we can say that every case is totally black or white. In the majority of cases a dwelling will be excluded from the right-to-buy provisions, or it will be within the right-to-buy provisions, but in certain circumstances there will be a slightly grey area in between. However, the dwelling has to be designed or specially adapted for, in addition to it being let to, a person of pensionable age. We are satisfied that that will exclude the category of dwellings that has exercised hon. Members on both sides of the House and their Lordships in another place—the category 1 type of accommodation, the genuine purpose-built, specially adapted accommodation for the elderly. That has been the subject of this debate and we are satisfied that it is covered by our amendment.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I press the Minister a little further? The Opposition wish to exclude, and wish to obtain an agreement to exclude, from the obligation to sell property that was intended and designed for old people. As I understand, the argument falls into two categories. The first is whether, by a change of words, there is an opportunity for councils to exclude from the provisions of the Bill houses and flats that were not intended for old people, but that are occupied by old people. I accept that the Government's position is clear on that, although I do not agree with it. I do not wish to disagree with the Government's insistence that houses and flats that are temporarily occupied by old people are not covered by the amendment.
Many hon. Members pointed out that unless this single word is changed, unless the semantic argument is altered, there


may be flats that were intended, maisonettes that were built, and houses that were designed for old people, which despite the principle that the Government have conceded are nevertheless in the area of obligatory sale. If that is the case, the House will agree that the intention described by the Secretary of State has not been fulfilled. I ask the Minister in all humility—I do not understand the semantics and technicalities—to make clear whether the change of a single word makes a material difference between what the House intended and what he promised.
My position is clear. Our understanding from the Government is that accommodation that was intended for and designed for elderly persons shall be excluded from compulsory sale. I shall vote for every amendment that clarifies, stipulates and confirms that. I accept that accommodation that is temporarily occupied by elderly persons is a different matter. Does this amendment make a material difference to what the Secretary of State promised?
I accept the Minister's judgment, and I accept his word. This is an argument not about honour but about interpretation and clarification. If the Minister tells me that the difference between the two words is immaterial I shall not support the Liberal amendment, but if he tells me that there is a material difference, the understanding given by the Secretary of State to the House is of such a character that I shall regard the Liberal amendment as clarifying and confirming any implied agreement. I hope that the Minister will make the position clear.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister clarify one point? He said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that if a category 1 house was let temporarily to a person who was not of pensionable age, that would be covered by his amendment, because of the word "practice". I know of cases in my constituency—let us leave aside the fact that the Bill does not apply to Scotland, because presumably it happens elsewhere—where category 1 houses are allocated to tenants who are below pensionable age because of specific needs. By no stretch of interpretation could it be said to be the "practice" of landlords to let such houses only for occupation by

persons of pensionable age, when they may have been let for some years to people who are below pensionable age. Our amendment is designed to cover those houses.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance on that point, and that if he is in any doubt about the matter he will consult a Law Officer on the interpretation. I believe that the assurance that he gave a few moments ago will not cover the sort of houses that I have described. That is why the word "normally" is essential. I do not believe that it opens any loophole. One still has paragraph (a) as well as paragraph (b). I believe that we have made a sensible improvement to this amendment.

Mr. Skinner: Unless the Government are prepared to accept the new manuscript amendment, clarifying the position, they can be accused of ratting on the agreement drawn up this afternoon at a time, let it be said, when the Speaker of the House was trying to take part in some kind of agreement and ensure that the House of Commons could be satisfied as to the conduct of its Members during the course of the events later in the day.
I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will realise that we are not finished yet. He was gloating initially when reference was made to this matter, because he felt that he had got away with something by his sleight of hand. It is necessary for the Government to make it clear that they have not ratted on the agreement.
Let me give an example, which occurred many years ago when I was in local government. This example could be repeated many times. Often bungalows are built for old-age pensioners, but circumstances change because of a mine closure, for example, and there is a population drift. In 1959 about 30 bungalows were built for old people in my area. The Tories took control of Clay Cross council and broke an agreement by letting the bungalows off to single people. The following year I was elected to the council and we shifted the Tories out. We regained control, and those bungalows reverted to their original use—occupation by old-age pensioners. How would they fit into this proposed category? How


would those who have retired at 60 under the miners' voluntary retirement scheme be dealt with? How do they fit into this provision if it is on the basis of "only" and not "normally"?
It is time that the Government spoke up clearly on this matter. They have been dragging their feet and trying to escape from the decisions made in the Lords weeks ago. It is time they made clear just what they mean by the amendment, so that we can vote for the amendment that gives most pensioners the chance to remain in their homes and ensures that fewer bungalows are sold.

Mr. Straw: We do not yet have the Official Report for this afternoon's proceedings, but I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said when he made his statement. My recollection—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—is that at no time did he suggest that the manuscript amendment to be moved would be qualified by the word "only". The import of what he said was that the spirit of what was proposed in the Lords, which did not include the word "only", would be embodied in the manuscript amendment, subject to the Secretary of State's having the power to decide whether categories of dwellings came within the specifications of the Lords amendment.
At no time did I hear him use the crucial qualifying word "only". If I am wrong, I will give way immediately, to be corrected, but if I am right, the Minister and the Secretary of State appear by sleight of hand to be twisting the agreement that was reached—in this House, not behind the scenes—and that resulted in our withdrawing our opposition.
Therefore, I ask the Minister what the Secretary of State did say. Is our recollection right, that he did not use the word "only"? When the right hon. Gentleman claimed to clarify paragraph 5(b), he said that even where a landlord let a dwelling for a period to someone who was not elderly, that would not undermine the statement that it was the practice of the landlord to let it only for the occupation of an elderly person. Either words mean what they say or they do not. If it is said that it is the practice of the landlord to let the property

only for the occupation of elderly persons, surely if the landlord lets it for occupation by someone else it is the practice of the landlord to let it for occupation by people other than elderly people. Therefore, the Secretary of State will refuse his consent.
Does the Minister intend to accept the Liberal amendment? If not, what will his administrative practice be to ensure that dwellings that are generally used by the elderly are not excluded from this amendment simply because, from time to time, they happen to be let to people who are not elderly?

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Many Opposition Members talk about the spirit and the intentions of the amendment. Many of us are aware what the spirit is among them. They want an amendment so loose that a dwelling with a longer toilet chain or a handrail on the bath can be called a dwelling for the elderly.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The hon. Member represents a part of the city that I represent—as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—so he knows what examples can arise there. What happens in such cities, with many hundreds of tower blocks, the ground floor flats of which are, by and large, let exclusively for elderly people—they are, in effect, bungalows—but occasionally for the disabled? In other words, they would be covered by the word "normally", but not by "only". Are the ground floor flats that the hon. Member tries to secure for old folks to be denied the protection of the amendment?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: The hon. Memmer speaks emotionally, as ever, but he used the phrase "by and large", so he knows that the situation would not be covered. Therefore, it does not matter. It always sounds good to talk as the hon. Member does, but we want to ensure that people are allowed to buy their own properties. What we do not want is a clause so widely drawn that friends of hon. Members opposite, by some minor amendments to property, will be able to frustrate what many of us were elected to do—give people the right to buy their own homes. If anyone withdrew the word "only" we should not vote for the amendment.

Mr. Allen McKay: I should like to put an idea into the Minister's mind to try to get him to agree that it should be "normally" and not "only". In my constituency a number of the dwellings that are normally reserved for old people are let to miners who are suffering from pneumoconiosis and need this type of dwelling in which to spend the remaining years of their lives. These houses are normally old people's dwellings.
The other thing is that the Bill refers to lodgers. Many an old person will take his son or daughter into that type of house, and that will become the only rather than the normal dwelling. Therefore it is imperative in my constituency that the word is "normal" rather than "only".

Sir Albert Costain (Folkestone and Hythe): The deep divisions that have arisen during the debate show the unwisdom of immediately accepting just a change of word. As I interpret the Government's intention, the sort of amendment that ought to be put in is not one concerned with "only" or "normally "but one that refers to the type of accommodation that is usually occupied. The question of "normally" or "only" makes no difference.

Mr. Keith Wickenden: I think that the House knows what the amendment to the proposed amendment is trying to achieve, but I question whether the word that is being used is the right one. My hon. Friend has stuck fast to his guns and insisted that "only" is the word to be used. Labour Members have said that "normally" was the word that should be used. Surely the phrase "normally occupied" demonstrates the manner in which the property is to be occupied rather than the circumstances under which it is to be occupied.
The phrase that should be used is either "usually occupied" or "customarily occupied" which is different from "normally occupied". If that is so, the amendment to the proposed amendment is misconceived, and should be rejected.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the Government will take account of some of the specific points that have been made by hon. Members about the precise circumstances in which

this phraseology would be unhelpful and that the amendment to the proposed amendment would make the matter more sensible. I think that discussions are still being held and advice is still being taken as I speak which may lead to that.
The hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) suggested an alternative that is no less acceptable to us, but we would not wish to complicate the proceedings. The hon. Gentleman suggested that "usually" might be a better word, but we are all trying to get at the same thing. We are trying to find a form of words that will achieve what the Minister said he wanted to do in practice.
The Minister said, quite helpfully, that in practice an authority that had special reasons to let—perhaps temporarily—such a property to somebody who was not a pensioner would not be covered by the word "only", but Ministers are not always the final judge of the law on these matters, and even if the Minister attempts, in the best spirit, to interpret this provision flexibly and freely, at the end of the day he may fall foul of the strict form of the law.
In the circumstances, I think that it would be sensible to take due account of the various suggestions that have come from various parts of the House. If the hon. Gentleman finds "normally" unattractive, there are still a few moments left in which to consider using "usually" or to find some other suitable word. "Normally" is a word that appears regularly in statutes in circumstances such as these, and I hope that in these few moments the Minister has found it possible to regard these words as acceptable.

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is confronted with a problem relating to a guillotine motion that will bring the debate to a close at 12 o'clock. The last seven hon. Members who have spoken have asked the Government a question, and the guillotine motion is such that the Government can simply not answer the question and wait for the guillotine to fall at midnight.
May I plead with the Government simply to answer the question, even though the guillotine will allow them to escape from doing so? The House was under the impression that the statement made by


the Secretary of State and the amendment proposed by his hon. Friend made it clear that accommodation intended for the use of elderly persons should be excluded from the compulsion to sell. If the right hon. Gentleman makes it clear that his amendment will fulfil that principle, I for my part will accept his word without qualification. What we need from the right hon. Gentleman is a clear undertaking that, semantics apart, words apart, what he intends, and what he said, are met by his amendment, namely, that accommodation intended for elderly persons will not come under the provisions relating to compulsory sale. Even though the guillotine might allow the right hon. Gentleman to escape, I ask him to make a statement of clarification before midnight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should point out that this matter is bound to be put to a vote even if it continues to midnight. The Minister may speak again by leave of the House, but he cannot keep intervening while other hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. However, if hon. Members are agreeable, I shall call the Minister.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I could catch your eye. I have listened to what right hon. and hon. Members have said, and I should like to try to clarify the situation. Of course, we gave an assurance earlier today that it was our intention to exclude those units of accommodation that are built, converted and used for the elderly. We have tried in honour to draft and agree an amendment that carries out the intention that I first announced to the House. I assure the House that in my view, having listened to the arguments, there is broadly no change in the commitment.
I appreciate that if we try to examine every word we shall run into the difficulty that we have always experienced with this legislation, and I do not try to escape from it at this late hour. The problem with this legislation is that it can deal with the issue from two points of view. It can be dealt with from the point of view of those who are genuinely trying to ensure that the accommodation built or adapted for the elderly is preserved

for that purpose, and I have assured the House that that is our intention. It can also be dealt with from the point of view of those who are looking for different opportunities within the drafting. I do not suggest for a minute that the hon. Members who raised this point have such a thing in mind. However, as the Minister sponsoring the Bill, I must always have in mind the possibility that others less charitably disposed to what the Government are seeking to achieve might have such a purpose in mind.
I gave the assurance this afternoon in total sincerity and I still believe that that is the way in which the amendment will work out if it is incorporated by this House and their Lordships in the legislation.
I cannot deny to the House—and it is clear from the amendment—that there will be questions at the margin. There is no way of escaping that situation. We have tried to deal with that by taking the view that where the case is at the margin the discretion remains with the Secretary of State, to whom the individual authority will have to apply. If the amendment is accepted the Secretary of State will have to act within the law of the land. That is laid down, and it is quite clear what it will be.
Nevertheless, the sort of questions that are being raised enable the Secretary of State to look at the practice of the local authority. If it is the view of the Secretary of State, looking at that practice in the context of a specific house, that it has been the practice to let that house for the elderly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only."]

Mr. Douglas-Mann: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: If it is the view of the Secretary of State that it is the practice of the authority to let the house for the elderly—[Hon. Members: "Only"] It is a question of the word "practice". There is an element of discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State, which is designed to balance the position of the local authority, which also has the discretion as to whether—

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I want to


try to explain the situation as best I can. It will be for the Secretary of State, acting within the law, to interpret "practice" and the relationship of the word "practice" to the word "only". It would be perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to say that although there had been the sort of exception that right hon. and hon. Members have raised, nevertheless it was the practice only to let to elderly people. This is totally compatible with the assurance that I gave the House. It is completely within the spirit of the amendment that I have tabled, which is also in keeping with my assurances.

Mr. Kaufman: If the amendment is incorporated into the Bill and a resident of one of the dwellings in question seeks to buy it and the local authority does not wish to sell it, it will go to the Secretary of State and will say that it does not wish to sell the property because it is an old person's dwelling within the Act.
I trust that the right hon. Gentleman is giving an assurance that will meet the views of my hon. Friends and those of Liberal Members—namely, that where a local authority comes to him not wishing to sell, having been served with a notice to sell, the Secretary of State will not wilfully set aside the wish of the authority not to sell—[Interruption.] I am attempting to be helpful to the House.
I trust that the Secretary of State will not wilfully set aside the authority's wish and that its wish not to sell in such circumstances will be accepted by the Secretary of State in the spirit of the statements that he has been making today. If he is satisfied that that is the position—namely, that the wish of the authority not to sell will be accepted in those circumstances—my view is that the difficulty does not arise. If he can give that assurance, he can help to settle the problem.

Mr. Heseltine: I shall try to help the House—

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: With respect, it is important that I try to deal with the specific point that has been put to me. If I have time, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner).

Mr. Hattersley: Why is there a shortage of time?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman knows the problems of guillotines. He has used as many as anyone else in the House.
Within the definitions that my hon. Friend the Minister of State spelt out, there is a real area of clarity on the houses that are to be excluded, because they have been the subject of special subsidies. There is documentation, and the houses are known. There are perhaps a few more than 200,000.
It is difficult to foresee these things, but I may be the Secretary of State who has to bear the first responsibility of administering the legislation. If I receive a bona fide application from a local authority that has old people's accommodation of the sort that we are discussing and that is referred to and defined in the legislation, it will not be my intention to call for the record to try to find an occasion when, one night, the authority let the dwelling to someone of 59 years and 364 days and to say "Look, I have got you. You cannot sell because you once let somebody under pensionable age into the house." That is not my intention. I can only assure the House that that is the position.

Mr. David Steel: I give the House a specific example that cannot come within the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman has given the House. In a block of about a dozen specially designed houses built about six years ago, one house was allocated from new to a man with multiple sclerosis, under pensionable age. If a request came for that house to be sold and the authority told the Secretary of State "We do not wish to sell the property", it would be no use the right hon. Gentleman's saying that it was the practice to let it only for occupation to those under pensionable age. He could be taken to court.

Mr. Heseltine: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman comes relatively fresh to the complexities of this legislation. He may remember that the disabled are specifically dealt with elsewhere in the legislation.
At this late hour, I shall try to state the case. If local authorities genuinely co-operate in the spirit of the legislation


and if, rather than frustrating the purposes of the legislation, they maintain legitimate accommodation for the elderly, I shall not try to use the minutiae of past practice to frustrate the assurances that I have given.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I am trying to explain the situation. However, there are difficulties, because the amendment is in manuscript form. I am trying to give the House every reasonable assurance possible in support of the undertakings that I gave earlier.

Mrs. Fenner: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this Bill is not concerned with the question whether local authorities wish to sell properties? It concerns the tenant's right to exercise the right to buy. My local authority has specifically sold a specially adapted disabled home. It was adapted for a severely paralysed tenant, who had asked to buy it. The Bill concerns the tenant's right to buy rather than the wishes of local authorities.
I deeply respect the view that, on the whole, elderly folk will not seek to exercise the right to buy. However, I should prefer to let them exercise that right if they so wish. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Bill concerns the tenant's right to buy?

Mr. Heseltine: No one has pioneered the sale of council houses to a greater extent than my hon. Friend. Nor has any hon. Member secured better results for his or her constituents. I shall repeat the assurances that I have given. The Government propose to define in legislation a significant number of people who will not be able to purchase their homes unless the local authority concerned is prepared to let them do so. In general, those people live in accommodation that has been built or specially adaped for the elderly and is being used for that purpose. That is the assurance that we gave, and that is the basis on which welcome progress has been made. I cannot go back on those assurances, and I do not wish to do so.
There is bound to be an element of discretion in the hands of the Secretary

of State. However, I have tried my best to assure the House that the Secretary of State will behave within the spirit set out today. On that basis, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the manuscript amendment and to reject the additional manuscript amendment proposed by the Leader of the Liberal Party and his colleagues.

Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State has misunderstood the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). We are well aware that other provisions in the Bill deal with the disabled. However, a property that has been designed for a person of pensionable age can be sold off.
I believe that the Opposition Front Bench may have been duped. The Secretary of State and his colleagues have drafted about 500 different amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman is sincere, why cannot he accept a change of one word to one line? If he does not accept it, he will be guilty of an act of deceit and subterfuge. He is deliberately pulling the wool over the eyes of Liberal Members.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 264.

See Division 451

in column 1093

Question accordingly negatived.

Manuscript amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendment that the Minister wishes to move to a Lords amendment.

Schedule B

HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION: MEANS OF ESCAPE FROM FIRE

Lords amendment: No. 220, after schedule 22, in page 150, line 33, at end insert—

"Exercise of powers of local authority

1. If it appears to a local authority that a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household is not provided with such means of escape from fire as the local authority considers necessary the local authority may exercise such of its powers under this Schedule such as appear to it most


appropriate; and it shall do so if the house is of such description or occupied in such manner as the Secretary of State may by order specify.

Powers available to local authority

2.—(1) The local authority may serve a notice on any person on whom a notice may be served under section 15 of the Housing Act 1961 specifying the works which in the opinion of the local authority are required to provide the necessary means of escape from fire and requiring the person on whom the notice is served to execute those works within such period, not less than twenty-one days from the service of the notice, as may be specified in the notice.

(2) The period specified in the notice may from time to time be extended by the local authority.

(3) Where the local authority serves a notice on any person under this paragraph it shall inform any other person who to its knowledge is an owner, lesee or mortgagee of the house of the fact that the notice has been served.

3. If it appears to the local authority that the means of escape from fire would be adequate if part of the house were not used for human habitation the local authority may secure that that part is not so used.

4. The local authority may secure that part of the house is not used for human habitation and serve a notice under paragraph 2 above specifying such works only as in the opinion of the authority are required to provide the means of escape from fire which will be necessary if that part is not so used.

5. For the purpose of securing that a part of the house is not used for human habitation the local authority may, if after consultation with any owner or mortgagee it thinks fit to do so, accept an undertaking from him that that part will not be used for human habitation without the permission of the local authority.

6. If the local authority does not accept an undertaking under paragraph above with respect to a part of the house, or if, in a case where it has accepted such an undertaking, that part of the house is at any time used in contravention of the undertaking, the local authority may make a closing order with respect to that part of the house.

Enforcement

7. Any person who, knowing that an undertaking has been accepted under paragraph 5 above, uses the part of the house to which the undertaking relates in contravention of the undertaking, or permits that part of the house to be so used, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 and to a further fine of £5 for every day, or part of a day, on which he so uses it or permits it to be so used after conviction.

Consultation with fire authority

8. A local authority shall, before serving a notice, accepting an undertaking or making a closing order under this Schedule, consult with the fire authority concerned.

Exclusion of Rent Act protection

9. Nothing in the 1977 Act shall prevent possession being obtained of any part of a house which, in accordance with any undertaking in pursuance of this Schedule, cannot for the time being be used for human habitation.

Interpretation

10. In this Schedule expressions defined in the 1957 Act have the same meanings as in that Act.

Application and amendment of enactments

11. Part II of the 1957 Act shall apply to a closing order made under this Schedule as it applies to a closing order under section 18(1) of that Act, but the ground on which, under section 27(2) of that Act, the local authority is required to determine the order shall be that it is satisfied that the means of escape from fire with which the house is provided is adequate (owing to a change of circumstances) and will remain adequate if the part of the house with respect to which the order was made is again used for human habitation.

12. In section 17(1) of the Housing Act 1961 for the words "either of the two last foregoing sections" there are substituted the words "section 15 of this Act or Schedule B to the Housing Act 1980" and for the words from "in the case of a notice" to "that section" there are substituted the words "in the case of a notice under that Schedule, that the notice is not justified by the terms of that Schedule".

13. In section 18(1) of the Housing Act 1961 for the words "section fourteen, section fifteen or section sixteen of this Act" there are substituted the words "secton 14 or 15 of this Act or Schedule B to the Housing Act 1980".

14. In section 61 of the 1969 Act for the words "section 14, 15 or 16 of the Housing Act 1961" there are substituted the words "section 14 or 15 of the Housing Act 1961 or Schedule B to the Housing Act 1980".

15. In section 29(7) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for the words "section 60 of the Housing Act 1969" there are substituted the words "Schedule B to the Housing Act 1980" and for the words "section 60(2) of the said Act of 1969" the words "paragraph 5 of the said Schedule B."."

Read a Second time.

Amendment to the Lords amendment:

Leave out paragraphs 12 to 14 and insert:—
'12. Any reference in the provisions relating to houses in multiple occupation (that is to say Part II of the Housing Act 1961, Part IV of the Housing Act 1964 and Part IV of the 1969 Act) to section 16 or Part II of the Housing Act 1961 shall be construed as including a reference to this Schedule; but the functions of a local authority under this Schedule shall not be among those referred to in section 70 of the 1969 Act (review of housing conditions by local authorities).—[Mr. Stanley.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 263. Noes 150.

See Division 452

in column 1095

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this House doth agree with the Lords in amendment No. 220, as amended.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am putting the Question.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 55.

See Division 453

in column 1099

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 147 to 164, 167, 169 to 183, 185 to 197, 199 to 202, 207, 209 and 211 to 251 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now to designate any amendments involving privilege. The amendments in question are Nos. 165, 166, 168, 184, 198, 203 to 206, 208 and 210.
These designated amendments must now be put to the House. I understand that the Minister proposes to move, That this House doth agree with all those amendments. Is the House willing for me to put the Questions on these amendments en bloc? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I must put them separately.

Schedule 11

AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ACT 1974 (C. 44)

PART VII (LOCAL AUTHORITY GRANTS)

Lords amendment proposed: No. 165, in page 114, leave out lines 44 to 46.

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 29.

See Division 454

in column 1101

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 166, in page 116, line 39, after "1957" insert:—
(a) section 60 above shall not apply; and (b)

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley]

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 26.

See Division 455

in column 1105

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry]

1 am

Lords amendment: No. 168, in page 119, line 20, leave out "£5,000" and insert "£6,750"

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 29. Noes 29.

See Division 456

in column 1107

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Schedule 17

AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ACT 1974 (c. 44) PART III

Lords amendment: No. 184, in page 135, line 19, after "lease" insert "or licence to occupy"

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

The House Divided Ayes 244, Noes 26.

See Division 457

in column 1109

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 19

HOUSING CO-OPERATIVES

Lords amendment: No. 198, in page line 32, after "corporation" insert
or the Development Board for Rural Wales

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 35.

See Division 458

in column 1111

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 203, in page line 19, after "corporation" insert
or the Development Board for Rural Wales

Question put forthwith. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 34.

See Division 459

in column 1113

Question accordingly agreed to [Special Entry]

Lords amendment: No. 204, in page 144, line 21, after "corporation's" insert "or Board's"

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Stanley.]

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 35.

See Division 460

in column 1117

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 205, in page 144, line 21, at end insert
or the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 34.

See Division 461

in column 1119

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment, No. 206, in page 144, line 27, after "corporation" insert
or the Development Board for Rural Wales

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]

The House divided: Ayes 241. Noes 31.

See Division 462

in column 1121

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 208, in page 144, line 30, after "corporation" insert
or the Development Board for Rural Wales".

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 30.

See Division 463

in column 1123

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 210, in page 144, line 33, at end insert "or Board".

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 32.

See Division 464

in column 1125

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining amendments:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 26.

See Division 465

in column 1129

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed

That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill:

That Mr. Joseph Dean, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Stanley and Mr. Waddington be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Stanley.]

That three be the quorum of the Committee;

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that this should go through on the nod.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must put the Question. It does go through on the nod.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 35.

See Division 466

in column 1131

Question accordingly agreed to.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported; and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The statement made on behalf of the promoters of the Bill told us that the debate would take place at 7 o'clock yesterday. I am very grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have so kindly come to show the importance that they attach, which is the same importance as I attach, to this Bill.
I want at the outset to deal with the point that was raised twice yesterday by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). The House knows that the hon. Gentleman would never knowingly mislead it, but it may be that inadvertently he did so, for he raised two points of order when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were not in the Chair, saying that he had not had an opportunity to discuss with the promoters the issues raised in the Bill.
The Bill was introduced into another place on 21 February this year. It received its Third Reading in another place on 11 June. It was introduced into this House last month and was considered on 21 July. It was put down for Third Reading for the first time on 24 July, and the hon. Member for Keighley and others put down a blocking motion. On the following day, 25 July, the parliamentary agents acting for the promoters wrote to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends asking whether they would like to have a meeting with the promoters to discuss the issues raised by the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman replied on 3 August to the parliamentary agents in these terms:
I note from your letter of the 25 July that you"—
the parliamentary agents—
think that a meeting could be arranged. However, after receiving your letter, I see that the Bill is down for Third Reading next Wednesday.
That, as we all know, has slipped to Thursday. The hon. Gentleman went on:
I regarded as a grave breach of parliamentary convention that the Bill should be put down in


this manner without any discussion which I would have been happy to have entered into with yourselves.
The hon. Gentleman made no attempt to approach the promoters of the Bill. When the parliamentary agents representing the promoters wrote to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends offering a meeting, that was the hon. Gentleman's reply.
The Bill is promoted by the Eastbourne Harbour Co. Ltd, whose shares are held by the trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Who are they?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman asks "Who are they?", and I shall tell him. They are Lord Hartington, Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Burroughs. Those trustees own 380 acres of barren, featureless land three miles to the East of the centre of Eastbourne and in between the town of Eastbourne and Pevensey Bay. At present that land is used only for the extraction of gravel. The foreshore is largely shingle and is largely deserted, even in summer.
The promoters seek to build a harbour, most of which would be inland. The Bill is required because it will be necessary to build certain harbour works, including two breakwaters—one to the West, which will be 540 metres in length, and the other to the East, which will be 300 metres in length.
Under clause 11, no works of any kind can be carried out to the harbour unless the plans have first been approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Further, under a later clause, any plans have to be approved by the Eastbourne borough council, which is the planning authority.
There will be moorings in the outer tidal harbour for 258 boats, including 30 moorings reserved specifically for fishermen. Ten moorings will be reserved for pleasure boats, to which the public will have access, and the remainder for sailing boats. There will also be an inner non-tidal harbour with berths for a further 1,560 boats. The non-tidal harbour will be connected to the tidal harbour, one may think appropriately, by two locks. Thus, the total moorings will be 1,818.
The estimate of expense was deposited in the Private Bill Office under Standing

Order No. 45. That estimate shows that the total cost of the harbour works is £24,263,000 at 1979 prices.
The scheme that the trustees and the company have in mind does not involve only the construction of a harbour, although this Bill is concerned with the harbour alone. The harbour is part only of a wider plan to utilise this barren strip of land. Under an agreement between the company, the trustees and the East Sussex county council which records the granting of outline planning permission by the borough council, the trustees have agreed to make available to the county council, free of charge, land for a primary school, a health clinic, a library and a community centre.
The benevolence of the family of my noble Friend the Duke of Devonshire, and the benefits that he and his family have already conferred upon my constituency, are being continued in this way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gow: No. I shall not give way. [Interruption.] I hope to have the Opportunity to reply to the debate, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his contribution later.
This land, amounting to six acres, will be conveyed by the trustees to the East Sussex county council. The trustees have also agreed to pay £2 million to the East Sussex county council, index-linked to 1980 prices, in order to pay for improvements to the main road from Eastbourne to Pevensey Bay. The trustees have also agreed to sell to a profit-making housing association, at a price fixed by the district valuer, land on which it is planned to build 100 flats. A swimming pool, a children's playground, and a caravan site, will also be built, all of which will be open to the public. It is intended that the public will have access, free of charge, to the whole of this development which at present provides no facilities for the enjoyment of the public. In addition, there will be 2,400 dwellings, ranging from four-bedroomed houses to two-bedroomed flats and maisonettes.
This is a thoroughly imaginative project. The cost of the harbour will be just under £25 million. The cost of the remainder of the development will be approximately £55 million at today's


prices. This project will have an important effect on employment in my constituency and in the surrounding area. The harbour works are estimated to provide employment for between 2,000 and 3,000 people, which, together with the development of 2,400 houses, is expected to last for 15 years. I repeat that figure for the benefit of the Labour Deputy Chief Whip. Employment will be provided for between 2,000 and 3,000 people, extending over 15 years. There will also be permanent jobs for 900 people. Knowing the legitimate anxiety of the Labour Party about providing jobs, I should have thought that Labour Members could have given a small cheer.
This Bill will provide a harbour for 30 fishing boats which at present have to be dragged up and down the beach at Eastbourne. It will provide a marina with 1,778 berths for small boats and 10 berths for pleasure craft. It will provide—I hope this will commend itself to the Labour Party—a haven for seafarers off the treacherous coast of Beachy Head. Indeed, it will be a source of satisfaction to my right hon. and hon. Friends to know that any members of the Labour Party whose pastime is sailing will be able to take refuge in my constituency. All this will be done wholly from the private sector, and at no cost to the public sector.
The Bill is supported wholeheartedly by the Eastbourne borough council and by the East Sussex county council—

Mr. Frank Haynes: Both Tory.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman should not be too scornful about that: they are a great deal better than the other sort.
The chief executive of the borough council writes:
Obviously, the harbour facility is vitally important and will give local fishermen the shelter and facilities for which they have fought so long and hard.
He goes on:
The number of new jobs involved in this development is of considerable importance to the town and the new business opportunities created will be significant and affect an area much wider than Eastbourne.
The chief executive of the county council wrote on 4 August:

The County Council fully supports the Eastbourne Harbour Bill.
The minutes of the policy and resources committee of the county council for 19 February 1980 record:
A major development in this location can be regarded as a natural physical extension to the town and will provide considerable benefits to the community, both in the constructional phases and after completion. The marina, with its associated development, will make a substantial contribution to the economic development of the town in terms of both direct and indirect employment generated by the project.
Whatever may be the views of hon. Members opposite, those views which I have just quoted were shared by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). In 1978, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, he approved the East Sussex structure plan, from which I will quote two passages only. Page 41 says:
The following specific proposals, which will bring jobs and environmental improvement or additional amenities to the area, are made:
A marine development at The Crumbles, Eastbourne.
So whatever the view of the Labour Party now that it is in opposition, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar, when Secretary of State, gave specific approval to the whole of the marine project.
I should like to read two letters that I have received from my constituents about the Bill. One, dated 1 August, reads:
Dear Mr. Gow,
My husband and I were most gratified to read in the Eastbourne Gazette "—
an excellent newspaper, which also supports the Bill—
that you intend to do your utmost to get the Eastbourne Harbour Bill through Parliament and stop the defeat the town suffered five years ago.
My constituent goes on:
The bigoted, petty-minded Labour MPs who are opposing this Bill obviously appear to be doing so purely from spite and envy, as no public money is involved. If this Bill is approved, it will be marvellous for Eastbourne and the residents of the town. We await August 8th and the vote with renewed hope, knowing you are fighting to get the Bill through.
There is one other letter I would like to read to the House—[Hon. Members: "More."] My hon. Friends must not tempt me. I am no longer a frequent contributor to the business in this House—[Hon. Members: "Shame."] This


correspondent writes, perhaps unusually nowadays when addressing a politician:
Dear Sir, Wishing you all the mighty success on Wednesday. Plan big please. Marina. Rule Britannia.
My constituent ends his letter, which was put through the letter box in our house in the constituency—which is called "The Doghouse"—on Monday morning. "Len the postman." Len the postman, because I think it is a closed shop, would be a member of the union of post office and telecommunications workers' union. The House will understand that it was particularly gratifying to me, having moved in the last Parliament a Bill to end the Post Office monopoly, that an employee of the Post Office should write in these terms in support of this free enterprise movement.
I have not exhausted the advantages of this Bill. My constituency has long been an attraction for former Members of this House. The noble lords Lord Shaw-cross and Lord George-Brown, dearly beloved by the opponents of this Bill, have come to live in my constituency. The Leader of the Opposition, who is not in his place—[Hon. Members: "Where is he? "]—has a small estate just outside my constituency. He is the Lord of the Manor of Ringmer. If, in the evening of his life, the right hon. Gentleman should seek to escape from the treadmill of leading the Labour Party, a berth could be made available for his yacht in the new Eastbourne harbour—and not for him alone.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) states in "Who's Who" that his recreation is travel. I gave notice to the right hon. Member that I would be referring to him during my remarks. It is true that I told him that I would be speaking yesterday and that may explain why the right hon. Gentleman is not present. The right hon. Gentleman's party—certainly I do not claim to speak for the right hon. Gentleman—sought to prevent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment from getting through this House a Bill which would give the right to council tenants to become owner-occupiers. The right hon. Gentleman is himself an owner-occupier of another property close to Eastbourne.
The Shadow Chancellor is the squire of Alfriston, and when he invites the

comrades trom Leeds, East to stay with him for a weekend in East Sussex, what better way of spreading brotherly love than by sailing his small boat from a berth in the new Eastbourne harbour and reflecting as he does so—some of my hon. Friends will understand the importance of this—on the lessons taught to him by our mutual friend Dr. Johannes Witteveen?
Those who oppose the Bill seek to deny a harbour for fishermen. They seek to block a project that will provide 15 years of employment for 2,000 to 3,000 people, and permanent employment for 900 people. Seeking, as ever, to abandon the magic of the market place, they would say to the growing number of their fellow citizens who like to sail in small boats "You may not do so; we "—that is the Labour Party—" seek to impose our prejudices on your freedom of choice".
Those who represent Keighley and Erith and Crayford, York and Darlington, Lambeth, Central and Bolsover—all, save one, landlocked constituencies—seek to prevent Eastbourne from remaining in the vanguard—at the head of the vanguard—in its primary industry, which is tourism. Theirs is a strange exercise in collective agonising about the undoubted capacity of free enterprise to create jobs and to meet the wishes of the people. They seem to forget that miners from Bolsover are more likely to be able to have a sailing holiday in Eastbourne than many of my constituents, who find it increasingly difficult to pay for coal.
We are a seafaring nation. Ours is an island race. Down the centuries we have built and improved harbours. Sailing, which used to be the privilege of the few, is now the free choice of many. I want to extend that choice, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I rise to speak because I have been elected to the House, and I am not indulging in a strange exercise. I am indulging in the right of elected Members of Parliament to scrutinise legislation that comes before us.
I remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who talks about the opportunities that we have had to discuss the Bill with the promoters, that I wrote back within six sitting days of Parliament


agreeing with the suggestion of a meeting, and at least one other member of the six signatories wrote back in considerably less than that time, and also personally contacted one of the representatives of the promoters, to say that they would be happy to have a meeting. That does not seem to me to be undue delay in any sense, and I think that it is wrong that the promoters, having written to myself and my hon. Friends seeking a meeting, should at the same time have arranged to place this motion on the Order Paper.
Therefore, it is not a strange exercise at all. It is an exercise in trying to obtain some element of democratic scrutiny—[Interruption.] There are some hon. Members who are keen to exercise that scrutiny but who have worn the hours of the early morning rather less successfully than others. We are all keen to exercise that scrutiny which the hon. Member for Eastbourne would apparently deny to us.
I should like to go into some detail on the statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the Third Reading of the Bill. It was circulated following the blocking motion that was put down by myself and five of my hon. Friends. [Hon. Members: "Who are they?"]
Paragraph 3 says that:
It is intended that the Scheme should comprise all types of dwelling from very small flats to four-bedroomed houses and that over a period of ten to fifteen years more than 2,400 dwellings will be built for a wide range of income groups.
I had a brief meeting with a representative of the promoters earlier today, although I cannot speak for my hon. Friends. I wish that they had had the opportunity. It was quite clear that the cost of these dwellings, the detailed plans, the type, the sort of availability and the sort of people who are expected to occupy them have not yet been decided.
In view of that absence of certainty, it seems to me that it is reasonable that we should object to a scheme, one of the components of which is still reefed in ambiguity. It may well be that the promoters are seeking to shield the basic purpose of the scheme, which is to create a wealthy marina with high-priced flats and fourbedroomed houses for people who are in the class that the Prime Minister and her Cabinet seek to represent, and that this

has no relationship at all to the ordinary workers of Eastbourne who are seeking accommodation.
Secondly, paragraph 4 says:
The whole Scheme, when completed, is expected to provide permanent employment for over 1,000 people.
Presumably, some of those jobs involve maintaining the housing and the infrastructure which, as yet, has been undecided and unplanned, and for which no detailed provision has been made. Meanwhile, the development work itself could generate 2,000 to 3,000 jobs and thus benefit the construction industry.
However, at present part of the land is occupied by N. F. Newton-Smith, Metal Recoveries, Newhaven Ltd., according to the plans that have been deposited with the Bill. The second item on the plan is occupied by the Department of the Environment. The third area deposited on the plan is occupied by Hall Aggregates (South East) Ltd.
I assume that some activity is taking place, that some jobs are involved and that there will, therefore, be some loss of occupation. I should be interested to know the extent to which these works will have an effect on the occupations that are listed and deposited with the plans accompanying the Bill.
Paragraph 5 of the statement issued on behalf of the promoters states:
An important part of the Scheme is the creation of a harbour for small boats, including fishing boats".
I wonder why more commercial operations are not included in the plan if the promoters are interested in developing jobs in Eastbourne. Why is there not the planned promotion of wider commercial activities? Why is there no clear statement in the Bill, or in the statement accompanying it, that small boats up to a given length will be admitted free of charge? That would surely help those who live in Eastbourne and who recognise that there might be an opportunity for working class people on low incomes to have a dinghy in which they might gain some relaxation.
If the promoters are anxious to provide for all classes of person in Eastbourne, why do not they make some provision of that nature? However, with the present policies of the Prime Minister and her cronies in the Cabinet, the range


of choice is becoming increasingly limited for those in Eastbourne and elsewhere as the level of unemployment increases.
Paragraph 6 states:
The intention behind the Scheme is to create a community at the Crumbles with a permanent resident population".
What size of population have the promoters in mind? That is part of the proposal that is totally vague. We have been furnished with no detail. At least two of the 14 paragraphs—of the statement—most of them cover technical detail—are about this vague area. It sounds attractive, but when we get down to detail there is virtually nothing there.
The estimated expense attached to the Bill is £24,263,000. That seems to be a great deal of money to expend on what might be described as the lesser order of priorities in a country that is currently facing a massive and savage diminution of its manufacturing industry. Is the Duke of Devonshire concerned about creating jobs, or is he concerned about creating a rich man's paradise in a marina very similar, perhaps, to a nearby example at Brighton? The House passed a similar Bill that enabled the marina development at Brighton to take place.
The promoters of the Brighton Bill indicated that there was to be a residential development. To this date no residential development has been made available, and there has been criticism of the access given to very small boats that are used for pleasure purposes.

Mr. Keith Wickenden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the past few weeks the Brighton marina company has announced plans to develop about 2,000 houses in partnership with Barrett Development Ltd.?

Mr. Cryer: It is a happy chance that, just when a similar Bill is being debated, the Brighton marina has announced plans to fulfil a promise made many years ago.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us were here in the late 1960s? We remember the promises that were made by the promoters of the previous Bill. I do not remember any promise to the effect that they would introduce housing plans in 13 years' time. They promised that houses would be built

alongside the marina immediately. It looks as if the promise made in the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary's rehearsed speech will be worth as much as the promises made by the promoters of the other Bill.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has emphasised a point that I made earlier. There are so many Conservative Members in the House because this is a pay-roll vote. The Prime Minister's bag carrier is promoting the Bill. Those who are not on the pay-roll are, on the whole, those who would like to be on it—[Interruption.]

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the former Labour Member for Brighton, Kemptown sponsored that Bill? Does he also recall that the Brighton Marina Company had to argue with a former Socialist Secretary of State for the Environment for three years before it could get planning permission to build the properties?

Mr. Cryer: That Labour Member came in for a good deal of criticism. Indeed, there was a referendum in Brighton on the virtues of the marina. There was a vote in favour of the proposals. Afterwards, people felt that they had been badly betrayed, because the promises that had been made were not fulfilled.

Mr. Christopher Price: There is a certain amount of impatience in the air. It is important to get the record straight. Although the previous hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown promoted that Bill, a very much larger number of Labour Members—led by the former Labour Member for Birmingham. Northfield—strongly opposed it. The former Labour Member for Brighton, Kemptown—[Interruption.]

Mr. Cryer: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made the position clear. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, but I understood that that was the position. It demonstrates that the House would be in great danger if, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne suggested, we were to tremble at the knees and fail to exercise any scrutiny of such measures every time the names of the Duke of Devonshire and the Eastbourne Harbour Bill [Lords] are mentioned. That was the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.


[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was. In his opening remarks the hon. Gentleman suggested that it was wrong even to question the Bill. At the beginning of my speech, I had to make it clear that I was exercising my right, as a Back Bencher, to debate this issue on the Floor of the House. Had it not been for the efforts of Labour Back Benchers this debate would not have taken place.
Contrary to the wishes of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, a debate is taking place. There should be an interchange of ideas. It is only reasonable to examine the ideas put forward. The Brighton measure provides a basis of experience. Even those Conservative Members who wish to curry favour with the Prime Minister, with "oohs" and "ahs" in support of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, and who desperately hope that she will notice, must accept that the previous Bill is not the best star on the horizon.
This kind of project seems very low on our scale of priorities in this country. For example, manufacturing industry in many areas could do with an injection of private capital and it is not getting it. [Interruption.] Of course the Tories joke about injecting private money into manufacturing industry. They have to find some small grain of comfort from somewhere. Their constituents are pressing them about lost jobs which have resulted from firms closing down in their constituencies. The fact that they are enjoying a little entertainment at this early hour is no reason for not looking at the cold reality of life; and the cold reality is that one manufacturing company after another is closing down. That is not because we are not competitive, or because we lack investment. In the textile industry there has been co-operation with the trade unions, investment, the lot, and yet jobs are still being lost. I do not want to go too far down that path because I would probably he out of order.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Is not the hon. Member very pleased to encourage the manufacture of boats? I know two very good boat builders in Keighley who will be delighted with this Bill.

Mr. Cryer: This is the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, and if it provides even half

a job for a boat builder in the next five years I shall be very surprised. It will not do anything of the sort. We are talking about expenditure over 15 years just to get things sorted out and provide the basic marina. It is nonsense to suggest that the Bill will have any significant effect.
It is a sign of the times that people with influence and money should contribute to this sort of thing. Incidentally, the source of the money is not clear. Will the local authorities have some investment in this development, or will the Duke of Devonshire's well-lined pockets make the major contribution? Should not money go into more urgent priorities than a rich man's marina in a Victorian seaside resort?
The other items in the Bill that worry me are the number of clauses which would cause concern if they were in delegated legislation. I have no doubt that the Conservatives would be equally concerned in that case. Do they not think that it is wrong to have powers residing in various institutions which cannot be subject to some sort of control and application of justice? Clause 19 says:
The Company may from time to time make, alter and repeal such byelaws as they think fit for all or any of the following purposes.
About a dozen purposes are then listed. This is not a small matter because we are talking of byelaws which impose criminal penalties.
Is it right that Parliament should hand over the ability to make criminal law to a private company? Surely that cannot be reasonable without any redress, obligation to consult or right of appeal before the byelaws become law under which criminal penalties can be exerted.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the provision in section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972 which makes it wholly clear that any such byelaws are subject to the confirmation of the Minister of Transport, who is accountable to this House.

Mr. Cryer: Subsection (5) makes that clear. The Local Government Act 1972 was such a lousy Act that the local government reorganisation which it produced is a constant reminder of the


botched up activities of the last Conservative Government. I am talking about local topics and the lion. Member for Eastbourne should have the right to be involved in this type of decision making. Is the man in Whitehall supposed to know best about this elected dictatorship which we now have?
Clause 22 states:
The company shall have power to levy such dues and charges for the use of the harbour and for the services and facilities provided thereat subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit and shall publish and prominently display a list of such dues and charges "and so on.
There is no right of appeal and no requirement to publish these dues and charges. A meeting of local people might be called to give them the right of consultation or objection. But the Bill states:
The Company shall have the power to levy such dues and charges for the use of the harbour … provided thereat subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit.
Why should Conservatives take such powers with such solid consciences, when a value added tax inspector who is able to impose such conditions as he thinks fit can enter property? Do Conservatives say that such powers are too wide? If that is true for one person, surely it must be true in private and industrial companies which see their advantage as private profit for the trustees of the Devonshire estate? That is the aim—it is not for the benefit of the community. Conservatives might moan and groan, but I make the point because this is not the best way to take powers to make regulations as the Government think fit.
Even the Secretary of State for Industry, who as everybody knows is besotted by private enterprise and the profit motive, qualifies his remarks by saying that they must operate within a regulated framework. That is because we know that the profit motive can produce cruel, harsh and even corrupt results. That is why this House should hesitate at handing over, in effect, the powers to produce,
such terms and conditions as they think fit".
without the qualifying democratic accountability, which is at least a safeguard for the citizenry.
Clause 23 states:
Dues and charges demanded at the harbour shall be payable subject to such conditions as

the Company may from time to time specify in their published list of charges.
That brings me back to the question of free access for boats of less than 16 ft in length. It is clearly within the province of the Company to make charges and give exemptions.
Now that the Prime Minister is leaving, more Conservative Members will be able to leave their seats in the knowledge that they will not be in danger of hindering their careers.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: That is the first joke that the hon. Gentleman has made since I have known him.

Mr. Cryer: The company is clearly able to give exemptions. Such exemptions may cost the company money. The marina is the first stage that we are concerned with, and it gives us the outline. The residential part and the gift of land for schools for the community are vagaries. We are dealing with the legal powers relating to the marina. Perhaps the hon. Member for Eastbourne can state that the company will under clause 23 be giving a concession so that the ordinary people of Eastbourne—not those who will be able to afford either high dues or high-cost housing—can enjoy the coastline that they live near.
Clause 24 states:
The several dues and charges which the Company for the time being demand, take and recover in respect of vessels shall be payable before the removal from the harbour of any vessel in respect of which they are payable and may be demanded, taken and recovered by such persons, at such places at such times and under such regulations as the Company may from time to time appoint.
I am not sure what the word "appoint" means. Does it mean that the company would have the power to make regulations? If that is so, it is a serious extension of the powers that Parliament normally grants on thankfully, relatively rare occasions to private organisations. We should guard such provisions jealously.
The House goes to the trouble of—[Hon. Members: "The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is asleep."] Many hon. Members are taking a deep interest in this matter, drinking it all in, ready to make a contribution at the appropriate time. I was diverted by the excessive concentration of Conservative Members on an extraneous matter


—whoever is taking a kip is beyond the Bar of the House and it is not a matter for our concern.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend is on a good point and is being treated disgracefully by Conservative Members. I am in favour of the Bill, but in clause 19(5) the private company is being treated as if it were a local authority. It has the same powers as a local authority and the secretary of the company is treated as if he were a chief officer. Conservative Members should understand that they are creating a precedent which they may regret.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is correct. He has raised a serious point to which I shall return in due course.
The House has established a Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and a Joint Committee with another place to scrutinise delegated legislation, because we regard it as so important. In the 1930s, Lord Chief Justice Hewart wrote a book called "The New Despotism" and centred his ideas on the fact that delegated powers handed over to Ministers were creating a new non-accountable framework of legislation which was not being treated in a sufficiently serious and, more important, democratically accountable way, and it was eroding the powers of the House.
I hope that none of my hon. Friends is doing such a mean thing as recording the names of all the Conservative Members who are leaving the Chamber, in order to send a list to the Prime Minister. That would be unworthy of them.

Mr. Michael English: The Prime Minister has gone as well.

Mr. Cryer: The Statutory Instruments Committee was established as a result of general concern about the growth of delegated legislation. The House says that we must have scrutiny of delegated legislation, but it was prepared, before Back Benchers exercised that scrutiny, to allow through legislation that unquestionably handed an element of delegated legislation to a private company. That is an element of double standards which the House should not tolerate.

Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make an enormous mountain out of a molehill on clause 25. Can he explain how it differs from, say, the arrangements that British Rail makes for people who want to park their cars at its stations?

Mr. Cryer: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are dealing with clause 24, not clause 25. There are two differences. First, the powers of British Railways were often inherited from the old 19th century railway companies which were established in exactly the same way, and of which I would not approve. Secondly, British Railways' powers are, to some degree, accountable to the House because the Minister of Transport can answer from the Dispatch Box a range of questions which are not the responsibility of the relevant Minister, for example, the Secretary of State for the Environment.
If an hon. Member visited the Table Office and asked about the general position of British Railways, it is conceivable that he could table a question and raise the issue in the House. The accountability for British Railways—and all publicly-owned industries—on a day-to-day basis should be greater. That should apply also to private industry. We are discussing handing over powers to a private company. If an hon. Member went to the Table Office to table questions on the matter, he would be told firmly that it was not the Minister's responsibility. There is a marked difference between the powers that we are considering in the Bill and those of British Rail.

Mr. Donald Thompson: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when discussing the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill the hon. Member for Newham spent a long time debating that point and arguing that rights should be left with individuals. I presume that we were arguing on behalf of the Labour Party, which would have scrutinised that Bill at some length. That point is dealt with early in the Bill. The hon. Member for Newham delved into that matter, and insisted that private companies should have those powers.

Mr. Cryer: I cannot answer for any of my hon. Friends. It is for them to argue


their cases, if they so choose. I did not serve on that Committee—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a serious matter when an hon. Member makes an interjection and states something that is not true. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) did that. There is no hon. Member for Newham. If he wishes to interject he should get his facts right. There are hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) or Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The hon. Gentleman should try to get his facts clear and say what he really means.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): We do not want another debate on that point.

Mr. Cryer: I do not wish to become involved in points of order on such a matter. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is right to point out the correct definition of each hon. Member.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about statutory instruments. Both he and I know that statutory instruments relate to the expenditure of public money and Public Bills. Surely the Bill is about establishing a company. The true comparison is between the rules set out in clauses 24 and 25 and the rules set out in the articles of association of a private company, and how they affect people both within and outside the company. His comparison is inappropriate.

Mr. Cryer: That is not the case. Under their articles of association companies cannot produce rules and conditions that are binding on other people in such a fashion as that provided in the Bill. [Interruption.] A company cannot produce regulations, for example, as it may from time to time appoint. It certainly cannot produce regulations which have criminal penalties attached to them by the company and enforced in the courts, decided by the company, as it from time to time thinks fit.
I mentioned clause 19 earlier. I must answer this point by referring to clause 19(1), which says:

The Company may from time to time make, alter and repeal such byelaws as they think fit for all or any of the following purposes".
It gives quite a wide range of purposes. Subsection (4) says:
The byelaws which may from time to time be made by the Company in exercise of the powers in that behalf conferred on them by section 83 of the Act of 1947 and by subsection (1) above may provide for the imposition on summary conviction for the breach or non-observance of any of the byelaws of a fine not exceeding £50 and of a daily fine not exceeding £5.
I am not talking about clause 24 in isolation. I am asking for clarification of the words
under such regulations as the Company may from time to time appoint.
It is true that a company may lay down rules about "no smoking" in a particular area, and so on. But this is a very wide application. It covers all the people who use the harbour and come under clause 24, and
The several dues and charges which the Company for the time being demand".
A company that enters into contractual relationships is governed by the common law and statute law, as they from time to time apply. It is not able to make regulations which govern it is own contractual relationships. Therefore, that covers section 24.
Clause 19 makes clear—beyond peradventure, I should have thought—that it has criminal penalties attached to it for breach of the byelaws which the company can produce as it thinks fit. I should have thought that it was quite clear that almost no company was able to do that—only a specialised company, which is why we are debating this issue tonight, why we are giving it this power—[Interruption.] An hon. Members says "You are doing this." All right. I admit that Conservative Members, because of fear for their career prospects or whatever, will not be making a contribution. But that does not mean to say that there should not be this sort of scrutiny. If Conservative Members want to contribute, we shall look forward to listening to them with interest.
However, I want to come to clause 26 This says
The Company may, if they think fit, require any person liable, or to become liable, to pay dues or charges to the Company to deposit with their collector, or to guarantee


such sums as, in the opinion of the Company, is reasonable having regard to the probable amount thereof.
Here we are giving a power to a company to require any person
to pay dues or charges … to deposit with their collector
or to make a guarantee to the company "if they think fit"—in the opinion of the company.
If we are dealing with delegated legislation, we would have regard, for example, to the right of appeal against a particular body. It is very interesting that Conservative Members are gloating now at this private enterprise venture, and are apparently, with such carefree comments, consigning it, as they hope, to the statute book. If this matter was dealt with by value added tax collectors, for example, or by any of the employees of Customs and Excise, and the VAT collector were able, if he thought fit, to require any person liable, or to become liable, to pay dues or to guarantee such a sum, would not there be a song and dance about it? Would not the Conservatives be asking "What about the right of appeal? Is it not true that we have built into our system of tax collection, for example, a comprehensive system of appeals so that we may be seen to be dealing with people fairly when they disagree with a tax assessment, whether on a direct tax or a tax such as VAT?"

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the clause. It is clear that there is a right of appeal under clause 26, because if a person who is required to make a deposit says that he is not liable in respect of any debt, the only remedy to the company is to go to the court. If the court agrees with the person required to give the deposit, that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Cryer: I can well understand a lawyer arguing in support of the courts, with a fee of £200-plus a day—inconceivable though it is that anyone should pay anyone on the Conservative Benches for his legal expertise. The hon. Gentleman knows that the fees that lawyers earn in courts are astronomical compared with, for example, the money we pay a machine tool fitter or a labourer in a factory.
We have built into many of our tax laws a system of tribunals, a system of

appeal, that does not involve recourse to the courts. That is far better, because recourse to the courts is often punitively expensive for those involved. In effect, that acts as a bar to the ordinary person who is seeking justice. With his legal background, the hon. Gentleman should know that a person who goes for legal aid, unlike a person with money in his pocket, is subject to further scrutiny by the legal aid committee to see whether he has a case.
There are occasions—even if rare—when people gain support, perhaps because they are members of trade unions, go to court and win, contrary to the view of the legal aid committee. The need for legal aid is an additional bar and handicap.
We all agree that if there is one case of injustice it is a case that should be remedied. Therefore, we should look at clause 26 carefully before glibly saying "There is always recourse to the courts." It is not a matter that Parliament should have much regard to. I am not over looking the courts, because they act as a stopgap, a place of last resort. But when we are dealing with primary legislation we should seriously try to produce words and phrases that avoid the possibility of people going to the courts and having judges decide what we mean. It is far better to achieve clarity of words and lack of ambiguity here in the House than to say "We shall pass it and leave it to the judiciary to make a decision." A visit to the judiciary can result in deep unhappiness, because of the possible financial penalties.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Could it not be the so-called expensive court work that determined the Government view tonight on the Housing Bill, when they refused to remove the word "only" and substitute another word? Will it not have been a very expensive night for the Government?

Mr. Cryer: I think that is right. That is an illustration of the kind of point that I am making. We are trying to clarify the position. Unfortunately, because of their doctrinaire view, Conservative Members voted down what many hon. Members felt would clarify the position and avoid local authorities having to make expensive recourse to the courts,


although the Government say that they want to save local authority expenditure.
I should like to summarise my conclusions on the Bill. First, we have every right to raise issues on Third Reading, although that was brought into question by the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, as the record will show. Subsequent to his remarks, Tory Members have been trying to ridicule every serious examination—[Interruption.] Conservative Members, in the manner to which we have become accustomed, question the very nature of the debate.
We have raised some issues and had a debate. That is parliamentary scrutiny which we are elected to carry out. I have posed a number of detailed questions on the promoters' statement. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne will answer the points that I made concerning residential development, types of houses, density, availability, price and rent. Will they be available to rent? If so, will the tenants have the right to purchase? The Government have gone to great lengths to give council tenants the right to purchase. Perhaps, significantly, they have not given private tenants the right to purchase. Is it because they wish private landlords to reap their profits unhindered? Do they wish to give advantage to private landlords and to deprive local authorities of the flexibility in the provision of housing that they have sought to maintain?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend seems to have misunderstood the point put to him by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). Did not the hon. Gentleman suggest that this was a private company connected with, I think he said, the Duke of Devonshire? Does my hon. Friend realise that the Duke of Devonshire may be a Socialist? He may not be a Conservative. He may not support Government policy. He may be a worthy Duke of Devonshire who is against the Tories. I do not know.

Mr. Cryer: It may be that the person in question has had a rapid conversion from the time when he occupied a junior ministerial position in the Macmillan Government. We do not know.
I am concerned that these decisions should be in the hands of a small group

of people without any element of public accountability. We are giving the Bill public accountability. When it leaves the House, it will go into the hands of a tiny group of people without any of the desirable provisions that the House seeks to apply in other areas.

Mr. Gow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman would not give way, but I will.

Mr. Gow: A serious charge has been levelled against my noble Friend—namely, that he might be a Socialist. I reject that charge. I am happy to say that my noble Friend is a warm and enthusiastic supporter of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member has confirmed my worst doubts and fears, and therefore, the reassurances that I seek are even more important. The sort of housing that the promoters have in mind for the marina development should be clearly set out.
On the question of employment, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I asked him how many jobs are likely to be lost. I should also like to know for how long the 2,000 to 3,000 people will be employed. Will there be 2,000 to 3,000 people in total employment over 15 years, or will 2,000 to 3,000 people be employed in each of those 15 years?
Finally, I covered the question of priorities. I urge the promoters to contact the originators of the scheme. I do not believe that providing a rich man's marina at Eastbourne is likely to be the best source of fruitful activity for the nation as a whole. A sum of money of this size—approximately £50 million—should be devoted more urgently to the process of getting manufacturing industry out of the mess in which the Government have placed it. It should be used to try to provide some of the much needed jobs, because, although this candy-floss project may have some superficial attraction to Conservatives, when North Sea oil runs out in 15 or 20 years we should have built up our manufacturing industry, using the abilities and skills of our population, rather than being left in a manufacturing desert, able only to import a few goods. If that happened there would be a low level of income for


the vast majority of the population, certainly not at such a level as to enable them to enjoy the facilities provided by this sort of marina. There would be no manufacturing skills, no job opportunities, no openings for apprentices, and so on.
That is the stark alternative that the Conservative Government are providing, and, in a microcosm, this Bill is a demonstration of their priorities. They are giving it their full-blooded and full-voiced support tonight, but it is a demonstration to the nation of the warped priorities that are plunging the nation deeper into economic gloom.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): As is customary on an occasion such as this, intervene briefly to state the Government's position on the Bill. The Department of the Environment had a number of doubts that were resolved with the promoters of the Bill. If there had been any doubts left, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has convinced us in his speech that he speaks for his constituents and what they want, and that all the local authorities concerned support the Bill. It is unthinkable that the House should not support a measure that provides employment not only in terms of bulk building but in terms of the construction industry also. In terms of the environment, we believe that this project will be of benefit not only to the people whom I have described, but to many people who simply want to enjoy themselves. Pleasure is something that Labour Members seem to forget on so many occasions. We believe that my hon. Friend has done a great service in introducing the Bill, and the Government give it their support.

Mr. Christopher Price: I reject immediately the charge that hon. Members on this side are not interested in pleasure. One of the greatest pleasures I have had is to have a front seat at this show, with the massed ranks of reaction gathered to show proper deference to the Cavendish family and their lords and masters, the Duke of Devonshire and his—[Interruption.] It really is a pleasure, especially after events

earlier this week, to see those Benches full and showing the deference that we expect of them.
I cannot hope to compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who has studied the Bill with more care than I. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made great play of the claim that this was a private sector project. I never thought of the Duke of Devonshire as part of the private sector. Certainly Chatsworth benefits from a great deal of public money in one form and another.
However, although the Duke of Devonshire has been firmly planted in the private sector, I did not gather from the hon. Member for Eastbourne what his motives were. At first it seemed to be pure altruism, that the Duke, in a proper Whiggish way, was not interested in private profit but was just giving all this to the good citizens of Eastbourne out of the goodness of his heart. That is the impression that, in the early part of his speech, the hon. Member tried to convey—of this grand gentleman taking pity on the town of Eastbourne.
My hon. Friend described Eastbourne as a Victorian town. On my few visits to Eastbourne, I have not seen one building of anything remotely approaching architectural merit.

Mr. Gow: The greatest eyesore in my constituency is the rest home—that might not be the right term—constructed at immense expense by the Transport and General Workers Union.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member knows his constituency, I am sure, and I bow to his greater knowledge. All that I have seen in Eastbourne is a rather grotty conference centre of absolutely no taste and some scruffy Wimpy bars.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we get back to the marina?

Mr. Price: I am sailing in at this point.

Viscount Cranborne: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. He has made a claim which I am sure he would like to be corrected. I think that I understood him to claim that the trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement had received


considerable public money over the years. The hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, like to know that I am in a position to deny this. I am sure that he would wish to correct the record.

Mr. Price: It is a pleasure to be amidst all the belted earls on occasions such as this. One has so few opportunities. Of course, if the hon. Member says that not one penny of public money has flowed into Chatsworth over the years, with his knowledge of the aristocracy and their ways, I am sure that he may be right. I had thought that there were ways and means whereby the Duke of Devonshire managed, if not to get actual grants of public money, at any rate to avoid paying those imposts and taxes which he might otherwise have to pay in one way or another. That is public money in the same sort of way. If I were to pursue that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, will be note that the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), has informed the House that the greatest eyesore in the town is the building erected by the Transport and General Workers Union? In those circumstances is it not strange that this Bill places responsibility for the approval of plans on the very borough council which approved that building?

Mr. Price: I bow to my hon. Friend's expertise on such matters relating to the Transport and General Workers Union, as I do to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) on Chatsworth.
I move quickly from Chatsworth and the Wimpy Bars of Eastbourne to the point I was making earlier. In his speech the hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke of the Duke of Devonshire—who, we are pleased to know, is a Conservative, unlike the Duke of Norfolk who voted against all the Government's Bills in the House of Lords—as some sort of altruistic gentleman, giving away his great wealth to this impoverished little town of Eastbourne out of the goodness of his heart. As the hon. Gentleman ended his speech with something of a paean of praise of the private sector, the

impression was given that the Duke of Devonshire, so far from being a rather Whiggish nobleman, was an entrepreneur, one of these people the Conservative Party is trying to encourage, someone who is to make a profit out of this marina and bring jobs to the area.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that his view of capitalism is somewhat imperfect? Does he realise that an entrepreneur may make a profit and he may make a loss?

Mr. Price: I am pleased to be called the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, which I take as a real compliment—and pleased also to have another intervention from the Tory Benches, from some duke or other. I can never remember which earl or duke—

Mr. Cryer: It is an interesting observation that, although this Government claim to encourage entrepreneurs, this entrepreneur decided in the first place to embark on this venture in June 1975, with a Labour Government. Clearly it is not the tax concessions which are said to be provided by the Tories which encourage entrepreneurs to start off on this tack.

Mr. Price: All I am saying—and it is not a point on which I put a great deal of emphasis because I propose to make a short speech; indeed, I do not want to detain the House at all—is that the hon. Member for Eastbourne should make up his mind about what sort of man this duke is. Is he one of these thrusting, profit-making entrepreneurs, or is he a member of the Cavendish family we know of old?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we pursue that line too far I should point out that this is the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, not the Duke of Devonshire Bill. May we get back to the Bill before us?

Mr. Price: As I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not a matter on which want to put any real emphasis. It is not something that we should make much of, but I was commenting on the hon. Gentleman's speech. I thought that there was a slight inconsistency there, but it is probably right to move on from the Cavendish family to the marina.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is a fact that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) went into detail about the philanthropic approach of the Duke of Devonshire, making out that he was interested in helping poor people over housing, and so on, and that he used private money. Is not my hon. Friend aware—I am sure that he is—that in Newham—and in other London boroughs—and that is probably his home as well—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Be precise.

Mr. Lewis: I wish that the hog would keep quiet and stop snorting. I believe that my hon. Friend has in his constituency—as I have in mine—a number of tower blocks. He may know that they are, unfortunately, falling down. These blocks were built by private enterprise. Taylor Woodrow Ltd. built them, and we are still trying to contest the Ronan Point disaster, where lives were lost. We still have to find £1 million—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What has all that got to do with the Eastbourne Harbour Bill? Will the hon. Member please come to the point?

Mr. Lewis: I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was explaining that the hon. Member for Eastbourne went into detail about the philanthropic approach of the Duke of Devonshire, who is interested in helping the poor people with housing and had contributed his private funds to that end. Is my hon. Friend aware that Newham is urgently in need of finance of any sort to rebuild these tower blocks, which are dangerous and are having to be pulled down? The Government refuse to give any money for this purpose. Is it possible to ask the Duke of Devonshire to say that instead of giving this money to Eastbourne he will give it to Newham?

Mr. Price: I am sure that you will agree with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that was a tremendously helpful intervention, which has enabled us to see both the Duke of Devonshire and the Bill in a new context. I am certain that when my hon. Friend gets a chance to make his contribution to the debate—and I am sure that he will—he will be able to elaborate further.
I wanted to move towards the marina and scrabble up on the quay before I

got myself out of order again—something which, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I never have any wish to do.
I was impressed by the care that the hon. Member for Eastbourne devoted to his speech. It was beautifully delivered—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is unfair of his hon. Friends to dispute that. I felt that it was quite beautifully delivered. However, it reminded me more than anything else of the speeches in favour of the Brighton marina in 1967, 1968 and 1969. On each of those occasions, the then Member for Brighton, Kemptown, Mr. Dennis Hobden, who perhaps did not have the turn of phrase of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, told the House with great eloquence of all the wonderful housing plans, roads and employment that the building of Brighton marina would instantly bring to Brighton. As we have seen, not one house for a whole decade appeared in that marina project. In other words, en that occasion the words presented to the House as to what would happen proved completely empty and quite worthless.

Mr. Wickenden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when one builds houses on reclaimed land, which is what happened at Brighton marina, it is first necessary to enclose the harbour? That was not done until two years ago, because it was a major project. The reclamation of the land then started, which has now been completed. The land had to be allowed to settle, which has now happened, and the contract is now being placed for the building of the houses, which is precisely what the late Mr. Dennis Hobden said would happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have debates about other marinas. We are talking about the Eastbourne marina, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Price: I shall certainly relate my remarks to the Eastbourne marina, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although this debate is a little wider than the one we had on Monday, when we were on a very narrow point indeed. On that occasion, I made a short speech just to start things off.
I am relating my remarks to the speech made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who sounded like an advertising


agent making a presentation and producing a prospectus. As is inevitable in this Bill, and in all these private Bills, the promoter must say "If you vote for this Bill, the following things will happen. We will build this marina, these berths, these houses and these flats". It is seldom that those things happen. This is a small point and I do not want to place too much emphasis on it, but I think that the House should be aware that time and again promoters come here with Private Bills and plans, which are knocked away by the economic situation, but the difficulties they encounter over the land on which they want to build, by changes in fashion and a whole range of things. We must consider the hon. Gentleman's speech in that context.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that five years ago when we debated this matter some lavish promises were made on housing in the event of the Eastbourne Bill being passed?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The promoter was allowed to make promises.

Mr. Skinner: The Bill's supporters said that 2,400 houses would be built in the following 10 years if the Bill were enacted. The Bill was defeated, but if the Chatsworth trustees were concerned about building houses for run-of-the-mill people—that is what they were saying—and not necessarily for those who would have yachts close to the marina, they would have got on with the job. Seemingly they have made no effort to do that during the past five years.

Mr. Price: I think that my hon. Friend—

Mr. Gow: May I correct the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

Mr. Price: Yes.

Mr. Gow: Since we debated this issue five years ago 400 of the 2,400 dwellings have been constructed.

Mr. Skinner: So they are 2,000 short.

Mr. Price: The Chatsworth trustees have decided to apply their considerable funds to the development of housing, a marina and various other plans at Eastbourne. Why have they so decided, with all the options available to them, and why should the House let them—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Because they have the land.

Mr. Price: Why should they put their considerable resources into Eastbourne?

Mr. Hogg: Because they have the land.

Mr. Price: I enjoy the sedentary interjections from the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I hope that we shall hear him make a proper speech after I resume my seat.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman asks why the trustees are carrying out the operation at Eastbourne. Surely the answer is that that is where they have the available land.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: There is available land in Docklands.

Mr. Price: The Duke of Devonshire and the Chatsworth trustees are one of Britain's largest landowners. They have land all over the place. When I lived in Sheffield I used to enjoy visiting Chatsworth. The trustees have a far greater responsibility to the areas that they have systematically milked over the generations. If they had not done so, they would not be so rich now. For example, they have far more pressing obligations towards the industrial area around Sheffield.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend raised an interesting topic. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has a brother-in-law or nephew who owns a derelict harbour in the northern region at Maryport. It is a harbour that is silted up and it cries out for development. I think that it is the hon. Member for Buckingham, but I may be mistaken. I see that he shakes his head.

Mr. W. Benyon: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I apologise and I withdraw that remark. However, certainly one Conservative Member has a relative who owns a silted harbour at Maryport. It is a town with 141 per cent. unemployment. It is crying out for development. Conservative Members say that the developers own the land at Eastbourne and that should be the criterion that governs where they lay their investment. If the moneys are to be made available, they should be made available


to those ports that lie in disrepair and disuse. Is not that in line with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Eatbourne (Mr. Gow)? He said that thousands of jobs would be created.

Mr. Price: I wish to get on, and to confine my remarks to the Bill. However, my hon. Friend has made a helpful intervention, and has concentrated hon. Members' minds on the issue. We are being asked to pass a Bill under which the Chatsworth trustees and the Duke of Devonshire—with all his money—will put money into a scheme for building a marina and houses. It is only right that the House should weigh the issue in the balance and ask itself, "Why Eastbourne?".

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Duke of Devonshire should build the marina in Sheffield? If so, is it not a curious suggestion? Is not the main reason for building the marina in Eastbourne that it is a seaside town, and that that makes it easier to build one?

Mr. Price: If I were to follow the hon. Gentleman too far up that path, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might rule that I was out of order. A marina in Sheffield is not such an absurd suggestion. Sailing is a popular sport in Sheffield. There are many reservoirs, rivers and canals. However, I do not wish to pursue that point.
If the Duke of Devonshire has the type of social conscience portrayed in the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, he is applying it in a curious way. He intends to build houses in Eastbourne despite the fact that the dilapidation and shortage of houses in Eastbourne is not nearly as serious as the dilapidation and shortage in Newham and Lewisham.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Has the hon. Gentleman any conception of the contribution that the Duke of Devonshire makes to housing in my constituency, in the area round Chatsworth?

Mr. Price: Indeed, I have. I know the area well. In happier days that constituency was represented by a Labour Member of Parliament. I hope that those days will return. In 1944, just before the 1945 general election, that area had a

famous by-election, at which the Marquis of Hartington, the Conservative candidate, was defeated by an independent candidate, Charlie White. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know his constituency well. If he should care to invite me there to show me around, I shall consider accepting the invitation. However, I should certainly stop at Clay Cross on the way.
We should decide whether the provisions allow for an appropriate expenditure of private funds, and whether the House should authorise such expenditure.
Conservative Members say that the Duke of Devonshire is willing to spend this money on housing in Eastbourne and, therefore, we should vote for the Third Reading of the Bill. The serious point that I am making is that in considering this sort of Private Bill, the House of Commons has a duty to order expenditure of this kind properly—whether private or public because it is such a considerable amount. If that money is spent on housing it should be spent in areas where people need housing. A Select Committee of this House has just reported that in 10 or 15 years this country will be tragically and massively short of housing.
I oppose the Bill because it proposes to put new houses in a place where that need has a low priority. I believe that the Duke of Devonshire should be encouraged—if he is such an altruistic chap and wants nothing more than the wellbeing of the people of England—to concentrate on areas where housing and investment are needed. Hon. Members may ask why he should not develop a marina in Eastbourne. I say that he is doing so, not because he is altruistic, but because he thinks that he will make a lot of money out of a growing tourist industry in the South Coast. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is perfectly legitimate."] I did not say that it was not legitimate. But it is up to the promoter of the Bill to say that this Duke character is just another entrepreneur like anyone else.

Viscount Cranborne: Is it not curious that the hon. Member for Lewisham. West (Mr. Price) is so qualified to say where new housing should go? I am sure that much is needed in Sheffield. But equally there is a great need for housing


in my constituency—particularly in Weymouth. Is it not curious that the hon. Member should feel himself so expert that he knows that Sheffield is more in need of housing than Weymouth?

Mr. Price: The noble Lord makes an interesting point. [Interruption.]—I am sorry, perhaps I should have said the hon. Member. Anyway, he looks like a noble Lord.
If the hon. Member had been rather more careful about giving his votes to the Housing Bill over the past weeks, he would not have half the council houses in his constituency being turned into second homes and holiday houses, which will be the result of that Bill. If there is a housing shortage in his constituency it will be due to the fact that his Government have refused to provide money for housing and instead have produced a ludicrous Housing Bill which will take desperately-needed houses from Weymouth and other places and turn them into secondary homes. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is in need of my protection. He protested that he wished to bring his remarks to a conclusion, and he should be allowed to complete his speech without interference.

Mr. Price: I was misled. I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends want to participate and that time is running out. I want to give my hon. Friends plenty of time, especially since we now have a distinguished audience on the Front Bench. The House must concentrate hard if such sums are being spent on areas of low priority in housing.
It is proper to refuse to allow the Bill to go through on the nod. I hope that when we reach the end of Third Reading my hon. Friends and others will use their votes as well as their voices and say what they feel about the Bill.

Mr. Robert Adley: Only last week the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) suggested how Dorset county council might run its education policy. This evening he has spoken about the rising cost of housing and has said that houses built in Eastbourne should be built in

Sheffield. He illustrates that Socialists spend their time trying to run everyone's lives with little benefit to anybody, including themselves.
I have two reasons for intervening. My constituency is coastal. I shall seek to show how my constituents will seek to gain benefit from the Bill. I am a recent former commodore of the House of Commons yacht club and I have received representations from the Royal Yachting Association and the British boating industry which fully support the Bill's objectives. Unlike Opposition Members, Government Members feel no antipathy towards those who sail in boats. Certainly we have no antipathy towards those who sail in boats. I shall explain how the Bill will help my constituents who are involved in boating activities.
Boat builders need customers. Customers who buy boats urgently need berths, and I am told frequently that boat builders find it increasingly difficult to sell boats unless prospective customers can guarantee somewhere to keep their boats. The boat builders need customers; the boat owners need berths. There is an extreme shortage of berths and this scheme could provide facilities which in due course could help my constituents.
The director general of the Ship and Boat Builders National Federation has told me:
The SBBNF is interested because any proposal to create a marina to provide more mooring spaces for boats is very much in the interests of the British Boating Industry, and will assist the sale of boats, and, therefore, encourage employment in the Boating Industry.
Safety is an important topic. The Royal Yachting Association wrote to me to say:
In the short time available to us all that we can do is to state that this project, a marina of considerable size, is to be situated on an area of the coastline which sadly needs such a facility even if it were only on grounds of safety and for use as a harbour of refuge.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) expresses concern about jobs. When he talks about jobs he refers to jobs only in industries of which he approves. He talks only of jobs which fit his private criteria. Life is not like that. Many people find satisfactory employment outside the fantasy world in which the hon. Gentleman believes that acceptable jobs exist.
If the scheme will provide permanent employment for a thousand people, and many others in the construction industry, I do not understand why Labour Members do not support it, unless their spite and hatred for dukes overshadows their wish to provide employment. Jobs for boat builders in my constituency are as important as jobs for coal miners in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or in factories in the constituency of the hon. Member for Keighley.
There is no good reason to oppose the Bill. It is acceptable on planning and environmental grounds. As there is no financial burden on the public purse, I urge my hon. Friends to support the Bill enthusiastically.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I did not intend to speak, as I do not know a great deal about the coast near Eastbourne. However, we are in danger of overlooking a most important aspect—our concern to protect our national heritage. It is important that we do not continue to build over good agricultural land or our coastline. It is well worth while trying to preserve as much of our countryside and coast as possible from building.
It will be argued that the site is not particularly attractive. As a shingle area it does not have many of the attractions that exist elsewhere. Reasons can always be found for taking away a little more of our countrside and coast for building, gradually eroding more and more of an attractive country. On each occasion we should try to prevent more of our coastline or countryside from being developed.
A large amount of money has already been made from the site by the extraction of gravel. A great deal of work would be involved to return it to attractive countryside or coast. However, it is the duty of those who exploit mineral workings to put the land back to an attractive state. Having made a profit from extracting shingle, developing it to make further profit will destroy our countryside and coast.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: One reason why the site has not yet been developed is that it is at the extreme eastern end of

Eastbourne. It is as far out of Eastbourne as it can be. The people of Eastbourne never see the site. It is about five miles away.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that. However, I believe that in order to preserve the coast and the countryside we must be firm and say that each bit is worth preserving. We should be doing more and more to restore it, instead of allowing it to be eroded.
Those who wish to use marinas also like to look at attractive countrside and coast. They do not want to look back at built-up coastlines. A tragedy of the 1920s and 1930s was the way that we allowed strip development along the coast and along our major motorways. On each occasion when we can say "No" to such development, we should do so.
I understand that it is possible to walk along the coast from Eastbourne to Pevensey Bay at any time other than high tide. Although the inland area is not particularly attractive, many people enjoy walking along that stretch of coast. I have studied the plans with care and it seems that if the development goes ahead it will no longer be possible to walk along the waterfront. That is another instance of the way in which traditional rights are taken way.
Many people enjoy walking along a beach looking for the odd bit of driftwood or other material that may have come ashore. It is a pleasure which costs nothing and which many people enjoy. Putting the works into the sea will ensure that, instead of being able to walk along the sea front, people will have to turn inland, round the marina and through an area that is to be developed for housing.
I hope that we shall be given an idea of what the promoters are doing to protect the right of free passage along the coast. The map also shows a series of tracks along the coast, which some walkers use. The promoters should have given us more information about the protection of rights of way.
We should not blame this development for the sins of many others, but often grandiose schemes that appear to meet all the interests involved end up with many sections being left out because they are uneconomic. We have not had assurances that we shall get the advantages of the


scheme, as well as the disadvantages. We need more evidence from the promoters that they will do the whole thing and will not give up halfway through.
I understand that there will have to be negotiations with the water authority about the marine implications of the works. I have scant knowledge of hydrography, but it would seem difficult to predict what will happen to one section of the coast if another section is altered.
We know the shingle was deposited in the area by coastal drift over the years. If the coast is slightly changed, there is a strong likelihood that the shingle will be deposited somewhere else. Can the promoters guarantee that the shingle will not end up on someone else's sandy beach?
There is considerable rivalry between resorts to ensure that they have sand rather than shingle. Many resorts spend vast sums to import sand to cover up the shingle during the summer season.

Mr. Wickenden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is not a sandy beach within 20 miles of Eastbourne?

Mr. Bennett: At the beginning of my speech I made the point that I did not know the coast especially well. I also said that I hoped that Conservative Members who knew the coast would make their points. It is a perfectly valid point that there is a complicated process of coastal erosion and deposition along that coast.

Mr. Gummer: All hon. Members who know the coast are in favour of the marina. Only those hon. Members who do not know the coast, and who are venting their personal spleen, are against the marina. Would it not be better if the hon. Gentlemen left those hon. Members who bother to go to that coast to talk about the matter, and not make general comments that are of no use to the House when discussing this important Bill?

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman say what studies he has made of the effects on the coast of the proposed development? It is extremely difficult to predict coastal drift, deposition and erosion, even when sophisticated models are produced. If the hon. Gentleman has considered those problems I am willing to give way to his knowledge of the matter.

Mr. Gummer: As the Member of Parliament for a constituency with a considerable coastline, I was making the point that if I made such ill-informed speeches about Stockport the hon. Gentleman would rightly object. One of the reasons why many of us feel that this is not a debate about the Bill but simply a means to keep everyone here for three hours while hon. Members make these comments is that the hon. Gentleman has admitted his scant knowledge, and has proved by his speech that he has no knowledge at all.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is making assertions, but he has not checked on the problems of coastal erosion and deposition. If Conservative Members are saying that there is no problem with coastal erosion and deposition, I suggest that they are wrong. I have spent a considerable time in the past studying various parts of the coast to see the way in which shingle silts develop and the problems of coastal erosion and deposition across river estuaries—

Mr. David Crouch: I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House about the beach. I am interested in his views about the movement of shingle, which I have on my coastline. It needs the establishment of only one groyne to cause a different movement of shingle. The House may not know that during the war I lived on the beach that we are discussing. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I might have something to say about that because of my considerable knowledge of what happens on the beach.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that. I am suggesting that we must be satisfied that people know what is happening. Almost everyone is happy to say that he is an expert on his half mile of coast because he is confident about what happens there. But no one is confident enough to say what happens on the next three or four miles, or further along the coast, as a result of a single change in the coastal pattern.
A whole section in the Bill provides for negotiations between the promoters and the water authority about changes to ensure that they do not cause problems elsewhere along the coast. We should have assurances that those negotiations


will happen. The actual design of the works tries to minimise the problems of silting on this development They do not want to end up with a marina that silts up. I am concerned that, in designing carefully their proposed works, they have not simply solved their problems but have created problems for people further along the coast.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend is on a very good point, although Conservative Members keep trying to ridicule him. I can tell him that I spoke to the parliamentary agents about this Bill—which is more than the hon. Gentleman did—and they told me that this matter was of great concern to the people living in the area. A great deal of work has been done by the Southern water authority and the promoters to ascertain the facts that my hon. Friend is trying to elicit tonight. Rather than that he should think that he is on a poor point, I can tell him that I was told by the parliamentary agents that the local people are very concerned about this point.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. But I would have hoped that it would be the promoters who would be giving the House the assurance that they have worked out what will happen to their bit of coast and the rest of the coast. Therefore, it seems that at this stage we should be ill-advised to approve the Bill. It increases the amount of coastal land that is being built on. There is no guarantee that people will continue to have the right to walk along the coast at that point. We have no guarantee from the developers that they will complete the whole scheme, both the advantageous and disadvantageous parts of it. Finally, we have no assurances as yet as to the effect of altering the coastline at this particular point on the rest of the coast in the area.
Therefore, I hope that many hon. Members will oppose the Bill on this occasion.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) back from his quiet "zizz" below the bar earlier on, and to pick up the three points on which he touched.
I think that the hon. Member's first and second points can best be answered by reference to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). He made the point that the people in Eastbourne voted for this development. It is those people to whom the hon. Member is referring as having their walks or their facilities put in jeopardy. They have weighed the pros and cons of it and thought that with this new facility, when it is built—as I am sure it will be built when we give permission for it—they will have a better facility than they have had hitherto.
As regards the hon. Member's third point, the removal of shingle, while I cannot profess to be an expert, I should like to correct the impression of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden), by saying that there is one patch of sandy beach well within the 20-mile area of Eastbourne—and that is behind the breakwater at Newhaven. It is the very fact that the breakwater was built that has caused the sand to appear. So, contrary to the impression about the movement of shingle along the coast, the shingle builds up on the windward or tidal side of the breakwater, and the sand builds up on the leeward side or the inland side.
I hope, therefore, that after this magnificent marina is built, in years to come the hon. Member for Stockport, North will come down and be able to curl his toes in the newly appearing sand along the Sussex coast.
Having, I hope, saved my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne the need to pick up those points, I should like to add my congratulations to him on his emphatic, informed and most persuasive opening speech. It is yet another indication of the way in which he represents his constituents' interests in this House, and, where it is possible and politic, he is able also to embrace my constituents' interests as well, as he so graciously did in his speech tonight.
I have the great honour to represent in this House the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Very often they take an interest in local matters. They open local Labour Party fetes. They take part in local activities. Very welcome they are too, in their new roles as landlords of


considerable properties in my constituency.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has only recently bought his property, for a considerable sum. I would not wish to embarrass him by stating the sum, but the mortgage on it would certainly be well over the tax-allowable limit. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has managed somehow. I am also sure that both right hon. Gentlemen will make full use of the facility when it is built.
The facility is a remarkable example of free enterprise entrepreneurial provision of genuine jobs, both now, in the construction of the harbour, and into the future, in the servicing of all its requirements. As my hon. Friend pointed out—but it can be pointed out over and over again—not one penny of public money is going into it. Usually Labour hon. Members are very concerned about genuine jobs being created, but they seem to be paying little attention to that tonight. I repeat that such jobs are being created at no cost to the public purse.
I have one question about the building procedure. If it is not possible for my hon. Friend to answer it tonight, it may be wise to gain reassurance from the promoters about it. It has to do with clause 10, part II, about the use of sea water and the discharging of sea water, and whether the pollution requirements of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 are sufficient to protect the surrounding coastline from the omnipresent risk of pollution. I am sure that the construction engineers will take the greatest care. Does the rider in clause 32(6), part IV, also contribute sufficiently to this?
May I add to that question a commendation of clause 32(2)(a), part IV, which lays out clearly the complete protection that all of those living in the Eastbourne community will have through the requirement on the company to clear all plans through the borough council and to obtain the council's approval to all of the plans that are laid.
I have three further points. The great boon that the new harbour facility can give to sailors along the South Coast will be felt by all those sailing along the coast. That is particularly true of those sailing from one end of the coast to the

other. The House will remember the tragedy that only a few years ago befell the boat then owned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It is conceivable that if the facility had existed then the boat would have made port, and that tragedy could have been averted.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup wrote me a letter wishing the Bill every success.

Mr. Rathbone: I welcome that intervention. I am not a bit surprised by what my hon. Friend said, because the whole House knows of my right hon. Friend's prowess on the waters.
There is one point with regard to provision for small boats. The previous incumbent of the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, warned about mention of the Brighton marina, but I should like to make a point of comparison. It is that at Brighton marina there are no facilities for launching sailing dinghies. I sincerely hope that in this new marina, although it is not necessary to put them in the plan now, there will be facilities for the launching of sailing dinghies, so that the many people who sail in those small boats can make use of it.
The next point also concerns a comparison with Brighton marina, because there have been difficulties for those who use it in not being able to sight land from far out at sea as a result of the inadequate lighting at the ends of the two groynes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne will reassure me that the lighting at the end of each of the sea walls, which is touched on in clause 16, will be better than that which is provided at Brighton.
I believe that the new facilities of and around the harbour will be of immense benefit to the community: workers, retired people and visitors. Visitors are immensely important all along the South Coast. [An HON. MEMBER: "The miners."] And the miners who come to the community. I refer to all categories who participate in the activities which take place along the South Coast and bask in the sun, which can often be found only on the South Coast. That affects my constituents as much as the constituents of Eastbourne. It will also be of benefit to all who sail and, perhaps


most of all, work on and in the waters along the South Coast.
I believe that, contrary to the inclination of Opposition Members who preach that this or that route should be taken or that thing should not be done—so often a negative approach—those who know this area of land and sea will welcome this operation.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: This has been a truly remarkable debate. It has been remarkable particularly for those of us who are new to the House, because we have seen a full turn-out of Conservative Members for this measure for reasons which I cannot understand. This is almost the last night of my first Session. I have attended more than 95 per cent. of Question Times and major debates in the House and, apart from Budget day, I have not seen as many Conservative Members in their places at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, let alone 3 o'clock in the morning.
What was so interesting about this debate was that, when the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister got up to go out of the Chamber. Conservative Members went out after her. But they waited until she had disappeared behind Mr. Speaker's chair to make her exit.
A little rumour has been floating round the Lobbies tonight. Why was there this sudden turn-out of Conservative Members on this occasion? According to rumour, it seems that at a meeting of the 1922 Committee tonight the right hon. Lady gave an undertaking to her right hon. and hon. Friends that she would make a point of supporting her satchel carrier, I think someone said, by attending throughout the proceedings on the Bill to ensure that it got a Third Reading. Indeed, it could be said that the right hon. Lady has let down her hon. Friend, because she disappeared some two hours ago. But we must assume that she will be back at 6 o'clock when the debate is supposed to terminate.
I was one of four Members, the other three being the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) and another hon. Member whose constituency I cannot remember, who took

part in the proceedings on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. The reason why I raise the matter during this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—is that during the proceedings on that Bill we enjoyed a considerable amount of evidence from a barrister representing the company in that case—and representing a company which hired the services of an hon. Member in this House. In putting his case, the barrister informed us about the details of the Bill and about the effect on Felixstowe of the introduction of the Bill. The people of Felixstowe had the right to object. [Hon. Members: "Order."] The reason why I am in order is that I am trying to draw the attention of the House to the fact that on that occasion—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to discuss a Bill other than the one we are supposed to be discussing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If it is relevant to the Bill that we are discussing, I can see no difficulty.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have not been in the Chair all night, and no hon. Member would expect you to be, but I have been present in the Chamber most of the night, except for a 20-minute break that I allowed myself. The conduct of Conservative Members, who have been in a majority of 10 to one over Labour Members, has been thoroughly disgraceful during the night—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I notice anything out of order, I shall not need the assistance of hon. Members.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The point that I was making was relevant. On this occasion, because of the procedures of the House, we do not have the opportunity of listening to the case that would be put by a barrister. But, more important, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, we have not had the opportunity to hear the case of the objectors. During the last two and three-quarter hours of our proceedings no reference has been made to the position of the people in Eastbourne who object to the Bill. Listening to the contributions of Conservative Members, one


would think that no one lived in Eastbourne apart from the representatives of the company which seeks to promote this legislation.

Mr. Adley: I wonder whether I can give the hon. Member an opportunity to deny the rumour—which I am sure is completely untrue—that perhaps his interest in Sussex stems from the fact that his sister was head girl of Roedean.

Hon. Members: Oh! What a disgrace.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That information is marginally incorrect. She was not head girl. [HON. MEMBERS: "Deputy head girl."]
I make my point because there has been no consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) passed me some interesting cuttings from the Eastbourne Herald of 1 March 1975, when the original Bill was brought before the House and was rejected on Second Reading by my hon. Friends. Some interesting comments were made during the debate at that time. Here is one article:
Mr. Daniel Sheldon (Tory) said that there was a danger that if the development other than that of the harbour itself went ahead first, then the developers might suddenly say that they could not finish the whole job. He also mentioned the possible effect of the harbour on shingle drift and the shape of the coastline. ' We need to tie all these matters up before we give approval,' he said. 'There is also the question of pollution which should be looked into in more detail. There are many aspects that we should be very careful about, especially financial ones, before committing ourselves to the project. The problems that arose over the Brighton marina might easily reappear.' Mr. Thorburn said that every aspect of the project had been fully investigated and regulations covering such things as pollution were included in the Act.

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, on Third Reading one can discuss only the contents of the Bill. The hon. Member has rambled around the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill in Committee and he is now dealing with objections to the previous Bill in 1975. That can have no direct bearing on the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, in that the only matters that can be discussed are the contents of the Bill. I was about to remind

the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that this Bill must have been through Committee on two occasions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thank you for guiding me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would say that it was relevant in that I was drawing attention to the history of the Bill.
I should like now to quote an article from a newspaper that is particularly popular with hon. Members on the Government side, if not those on this side—the newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party. The article, which was written some years ago and deals with the development of the harbour and the marina, was headed
Messing About in Yachts (at £50 million)".
It said:
Deep in the gloom of the crisis, the Duke of Devonshire and his son the Marquess of Hartington are planning to build a pleasure port on the Sussex coast near Eastbourne. It will cost £50 million—rather more than the Government's offer of wage increases for 250,000 miners. The Duke, a Tory Minister when his cousin Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister, has been scouting around the pleasure spots of the French Riviera for ideas for his new pleasurama … The marina will cover 400 acres of coastline near Pevensey, and will include luxury hotels, luxury shops and luxury flats for yachtsmen from all over the world. Up to 200 rich men and women will be able to enjoy themselves there at any one time and there are 400 berths for yachts. The Duke of Devonshire, incidentally, owns half of Derbyshire "—
perhaps including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—
a large portion of Yorkshire "—
perhaps including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—
most of the county of Limerick in Ireland"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of those parts of the country can possibly be in the Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That may be so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so perhaps I had better move on to the Bill.
I have within my constituency a development to which I wish to refer because there are parallels. When an assessment is made of the Bill, it should be done on the basis of the experience by hon. Members of the development of


ports, harbours and marinas in other parts of the country. I draw the attention of the House to the development of the marina in Maryport, in my constituency. I do so because it is relevant. It was you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who so carefully reminded me earlier that when I speak in this Chamber on this subject I must ensure that my comments are relevant to the Bill. That is precisely what I am doing.
My remarks are relevant because there is a lot of feeling in Cumbria, certainly West Cumbria, to the effect that one of the problems with the development of the marina lies in the fact that it is owned by a privately owned company. As a result, the criteria governing the development of the harbour are not laid down by publicly accountable authorities, not by local authorities and not by elected representatives of the people, using social criteria. Instead, criteria are laid down by the developer, the private company, the intention of which is singularly to make a profit.
In such a debate hon. Members must balance the social criteria, determined by elected representatives of the people, against other criteria which must include profit, which will determine the view of a private developer of a harbour seeking to make a profit. That single factor has been the greatest impediment to the development of the harbour at Maryport. Despite the statement of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), the people of Eastbourne, quite rightly, say that in their view the future of the land comprising the projected marina development should be determined by the representatives of the local authority by way of ownership or of nationalisation of the piece of land. A social facility is being created, and it is objectionable to many hon. Members that that facility should be in the hands of private developers.
I move from the subject of the harbour to a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley—namely, housing. In the document introducing the Bill which is available at the Vote Office, there is a reference in paragraph 3 which says:
It is intended that the Scheme should comprise all types of dwellings from very small flats to four-bedroom houses and that over a period of ten to fifteen years more than 2,400

dwellings will be built for a wide range of income groups.
I have visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastbourne only rarely, to pick up my sister. I am sure that he would want me to make that point. He would be quick to tell us that a growing number of elderly people are retiring—

Mr. English: Having had the benefit of the acquaintance of my hon. Friend's tall and beautiful sister—who was not the head girl of Roedean—I wonder why Conservative Members felt that it was necessary to drag in this irrelevance.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps for the same reason as during the debate on the Finance Bill, when we sought to table an amendment to remove the charitable status of public schools—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the Third Reading of the Eastbourne Harbour Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am told that it is customary in this type of debate to allow the hon. Member who introduced the Bill an opportunity to reply. If he does not wish to exercise that right I shall carry on speaking, but I propose now to give way to the hon. Member for Eastbourne.

Mr. Gow: The debate has ranged far and wide. It is a matter of relief to my right hon. and hon. Friends that on this occasion at least we have been spared a speech from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is perhaps that absence that we shall remember most when we reflect upon the events of the early hours of this morning.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A little earlier you drew the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to the fact that there was a certain discrepancy between his speech and the Third Reading of the Bill. What on earth has the last remark of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) to do with the Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be very familiar with observations about the absence of certain Members from the House.

Mr. English: What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. Gow: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) asked why this harbour was proposed at Eastbourne. It is difficult to build a harbour save at a seaside place, and since the trustees of the Chatsworth settlement own land at Eastbourne it is hardly surprising that they chose that site.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) complained that the building of the harbour would interrupt the free passage of citizens along the foreshore. If that argument were to be deployed throughout the country, there would not be any harbours in the kingdom, so I think that that argument is not valid.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When people have built harbours, they have had to make provision for people to get across at that point, by putting in lock gates with a bridge across or something similar. Why should that not happen in this case?

Mr. Gow: I have the greatest difficulty in hearing what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I invited the hon. Gentleman to intervene simply to answer many of the points that were made by my hon. Friends.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 15.

See Division 467

in column 1133

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 12.

See Division 468

in column 1135

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH AEROSPACE (BORROWING POWERS)

Resolved,
That the draft British Aerospace Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT VICTIMS (COMPENSATION)

Resolved,
That the draft Financial Limits (National Enterprise Board and Secretary of State) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT VICTIMS (COMPENSATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Charles R. Morris: It has been a very long, hard day's night. I am appreciative of the fact that the Minister is in his place to deal with what he and I believe is an important subject. The hon. Gentleman had a professional interest in the aviation industry before he entered the House and he will know at first hand of the conditions about which I am concerned. He will accept that few, if any, of the thousands of charter flight holidaymakers, or any other air travellers, when responding to the announcement that the aircraft is ready for boarding, will give a second thought to the provisions of the Warsaw convention and the associated protocols which impose an arbitrary limit on the level of compensation which is available to dependants if some terrible tragedy befalls the aircraft.
That is understandable. The international aviation industry, and particularly British airlines, have an impressive and proud safety record. Precisely because the public are unaware that an arbitrary limit is imposed on the level of compensation to the dependants of those who lose their lives in aircraft crashes, I believe that Parliament should be ever vigilant to ensure that the dependants of people who lose their lives should receive adequate financial recompense. My contention is


that under the provisions of the Warsaw convention and the associated protocols the limit of liability and levels of compensation available are a shambles and reduce the question of compensation to a lottery.
It is wholly unjust that, for example, the dependants of a 30-year-old professional man earning £10,000 a year and with a wife and three children could expect to recover damages of about £100,000 if he were killed as a passenger on a bus, whereas if he lost his life in an air crash they would receive a maximum of only £9,600 under the provisions of the Warsaw-Hague limits and of £25,000 under the special contract arrangements for British airlines flying to destinations overseas. If he were travelling to and from the United States, the limit would be £34,000. Facts such as these demonstrate that a dependant of an air crash vicitim is likely to receive a mere fraction of the compensation of the dependant of a road accident victim.
To illustrate the complexities that result from the variations in the liability regimes, I shall quote from chapter 19, paragraph 1117, on page 236 of the Pearson report on civil liability. For the purposes of illustration, the commission assumed an air disaster at Heathrow on a Paris to London flight. It records:
Liability in respect of a passenger on a British Airways flight from Paris to London might be up to £25,000 under that airline's special contract if the aircraft crashed on landing at Heathrow. Liability to another passenger in respect of a similar journey by an airline operating without a special contract and therefore governed by the Hague Protocol might be limited to £10,700. On another similar journey, liability to a further passenger who was booked through to New York could be up to £34,000 under the Montreal Agreement. If the aircraft had been flying from Ankara to London passengers ticketed only for that journey would not be covered by the Warsaw Convention and therefore liability might be up to £37,450 under the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967.
It is situations such as that which demonstrate the variations in the liability regime.
My interest in the extent of liability accepted by individual airlines originated because two of my constituents were killed in the Dan-Air Boeing 727 air tragedy at Tenerife in April. If I may digress, I find it indefensible and sad that some of the relatives of those who lost their lives in that crash are likely to receive only

£1,250, because a high proportion of the passengers were elderly couples. The only claim that their relatives can make is for what is termed the loss of "life expectancy."
To justify the assertion that the Warsaw-Hague arrangements are a shambles, I need only record the details of the Warsaw convention and the associated protocols. The 1929 Warsaw convention introduced a liability limit of £5,350. The Hague protocol lifted that limit to £10,700. The International Air Transport Association in Montreal in 1966 introduced a limit of £34,000 for flights to and from the United States. The Guatemala protocol of 1971 introduced a limit of £64,200, but it is unlikely that that protocol will be ratified and it was superseded by the Montreal No. 3 protocol of 1975, which imposes a new effective limit of £56,000.
As I have indicated, all British airlines travelling to destinations overseas have special contract arrangements for flights to and from those destinations which effectively fix a compensation limit of £25,000. In fairness, I should also point out that the United Kingdom Government have legislated for further amendment to the Warsaw-Hague limits in the Carriage by Air and Road Act 1979, which enables Britain to ratify the Montreal No. 3 protocol, which provides the new limit of £56,000.
The point that I make in regard to the new limit of £56,000 is that the improvement is not likely to become effective until 1 April 1981, by which time the figure of £56,000, which was originally suggested in 1975, when the Montreal No. 3 protocol was introduced, will have been seriously eroded by inflation. It has been suggested to me that £56,000 in 1975 terms should be something approaching £100,000 in 1980 terms.
Another difficulty has been drawn to my attention. I am led to understand that the Montreal No. 3 protocol has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries to make it effective, and rumour has it that the United States Government are not likely to ratify it either. I should like the Minister to comment on that point.
It is not surprising that the United States Government are not likely to ratify that protocol, because, although the


United States signed the Warsaw convention in 1929, the courts in the United States have awarded compensation substantially higher than any of the figures so far contemplated.
I need remind the Minister only of the DC10 crash on the Paris to London route and the resultant legal action taken by the dependants of those who lost their lives in that tragedy. They took action in the American courts and £30 million compensation was paid to them. I am conscious that there are those who will argue that air passengers have the right, and in some cases the obligation, to increase the level of insurance and compensation that they might receive and that they should do it on their own account.
The Minister said almost the very same thing in a letter that he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) on 31 July. In the penultimate paragraph he said:
if a prospective airline passenger feels that his dependants will not be adequately compensated in the event of his death or serious injury in an airline accident it is always open to him to take out extra personal insurance cover which is readily available through brokers and other outlets, and at airport terminals. Such extra cover is not expensive.
That is not an unreasonable view to take, until we put ourselves in the position of the charter flight air traveller or the air passenger generally. The charter flight traveller is encouraged by the travel agency to believe that the £3 or £4, in addition to the cost of the ticket, which he pays to cover the insurance for sickness and added death cover gives him additional substantial cover. In most cases it covers him only to the extent of a further £2,000 or £3,000 at the most.
Insurance cover is not the first thing about which an air passenger thinks. When he responds to the call "The aircraft is now ready for boarding", he does not think about that, although the business man might think about it. Having discussed this subject with a number of friends, I find that the business man has read the small print on the air ticket, which explains that liability and compensation are subject to the arbitrary limits laid down in the Warsaw-Hague-Montreal conventions and associated protocols. That is the reality.
Frankly, I subscribe to the view that either the Warsaw-Hague-Montreal system

of imposing arbitrary limits on liability and compensation—with its outdated limits of compensation—must be abolished, with a return to the ordinary law of negligence, or we must seek to build a wholly new Warsaw arrangement which establishes realistic levels of compensation. I believe that Britain owes that much, at least, to the dependants of those who have lost their lives in air crashes. I am bound to inform the Minister that it is my intention to persist in seeking justice for those who, I believe, have received so little so far.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I wish to express my thanks to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) for providing the House with an opportunity—although too short and at a not especially convenient moment—to consider the complex subject of payment of compensation to the dependants of victims of aircraft accidents. I am grateful to him also for the tribute that he paid to the safety record of British airlines.
There is general agreement that there should be adequate and speedy compensation following air accidents—and I emphasise "speedy". The emphasis and the interest are always heightened when accidents occur. I am aware of the tragic loss which came to the constituents of the right hon. Member in a recent accident.
None the less, I want to show that the Government are making some strenuous efforts, both nationally and internationally, to improve the present position, which is not in all respects quite as the right hon. Gentleman understood it. We are doing our best to improve matters on the international scene, but as ever, reaching international agreement is at times a tortuous and lengthy business.
The Warsaw-Hague provisions have been the subject of a good deal of criticism, much of which centres upon the level of compensation, but I think that there are advantages in having a system of uniformity of law under which the system of law to be applied in a given case is not in doubt, even if, as I readily concede, the limits of liability may vary according to the circumstances. The right


hon. Gentleman has made that point well enough.
The alternative in a field of activity involving foreign factors would involve the application of different legal systems in each case, and questions would arise then as to, in each case, which system would apply. Those questions would be answered by the very complex rules of private international law, and the application of those would be both time-consuming and costly.
It is worth making the point here that although the right hon. Gentleman referred to the awards of very heavy damages in the Californian courts arising out of a DC10 accident, I should emphasise that those were the product of actions against the manufacturers of the aircraft and would not be affected in any way by the Warsaw-Hague limits, since those awards arose from product liability law as opposed to airline liability.
The Warsaw convention, which puts the onus of disproving negligence on the carrier, established a regime under which in practice a person can recover damages, subject to proof of loss, up to a fixed limit. The system has the advantage that negligence does not need to be established by the passenger and carriers know with some certainty what the limit of their financial exposure is. That is important for the carriers when they take out third party liability insurance.
Therefore, although there are shortcomings, I do not think that we should lose sight of the benefits of the system. I know that it may be attractive to some lawyers to have the thought of frequent and contentious litigation, and I understand that in some cases recently in the United States the lawyers have been taking as much as 35 per cent. of the awards of the court for their expenses, but I do not think that necessarily that is in the best interest of the victims' dependants.
The United Kingdom is not in a position in any case to go it alone in this area. We are, of course, members of the European Community, but, even before that, for many years we have kept in close discussion with other European countries, particularly in order to reach areas of agreement from which we can all benefit.
It has been suggested that the advantage of not having to sue a foreign airline in a foreign court, which is a benefit conferred by the Warsaw convention, is not all that valuable since it is not difficult to bring an action in the United Kingdom courts against a foreign airline, provided that the airline has assets, even temporarily, in the United Kingdom. But I think that that is too simple a view of the problem, since issues of legal policy will arise as to which of a number of competing jurisdictions should hear a particular case. The Government's belief is that the Warsaw-Hague rules bring benefits which we ought not to surrender. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater in trying to remedy the deficiencies which exist.
The main problem is the level of compensation which is payable. Here the Government are making every effort, both nationally and internationally, to raise the current levels to more realistic levels. Indeed, it was due to a United Kingdom initiative in 1974 that action was taken by means of the special contract limit to increase the amount applied by the airlines of more than 20 countries to the present limit in respect of international carriage to not less than £25,000.
The Montreal additional protocol No. 3 of 1975 proposes that the Warsaw-Hague limit should be increased to 100,000 special drawing rights—about £57,000—and the United Kingdom has already taken steps to ratify it.
I realise that progress generally is unlikely until the United States ratifies. Although we, too, have heard rumours that there are difficulties about this in the United States, we have no positive information that that is so. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the United States is not habitually quick to ratify these conventions.
There is not a great deal more that we on our own can do to bring that protocol into force. But, as we realise that the current limit of £25,000, or $58,000, required of United Kingdom airlines by standard condition H in air transport licences has been eroded by inflation and the decline in the value of the United States dollar since it came into force in April 1978, on 28 May this year the Civil Aviation Authority published a proposal to revise the limit to 100,000 special


drawing rights—about £57,000. The intention is that any new limit should come into effect from 1 April 1981, which gives the airlines time to make their arrangements. The change to special drawing rights is intended to prevent fluctuations in value which have resulted from the use of both the dollar and the pound sterling.
The limit of liability in respect of domestic as opposed to international flights is already fixed at 58,000 special drawing rights—about £33,000—by means of the Carriage by Air Act (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, as amended in 1969. Our intention is that this should be brought into line with the international limit at the same time as the new limit for international carriage.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Pearson Commission. At the end of the day that Commission did not reject the principles of Warsaw-Hague and thought that limitation of liability might be regarded as a fair price to pay for the relative ease of recovery against airlines provided that the limit of liability was high enough. The Commission favoured a system of strict liability but thought that this should be achieved by international agreement, despite the practical difficulties. It concluded generally that air transport accidents were different if only because of international considerations. First-party insurance is by far the most efficient method of providing compensation to victims of accidents, for the obviuus reason that issues of liability which are expensive to resolve do not have to be considered.
Travelling on international air flights is not the same as travelling on trains, buses and coaches at home, and I think that it is sensible for people to take advantage of the inexpensive extra cover. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the awareness of the passenger of this cover. I have recently asked ABTA travel agents particularly to bring this

to the notice of their customers at the time a customer is buying his package holiday, and to remind him that it is possible to purchase extra cover, which would be in the interests of his dependants if there were to be an accident. The £1,250 payment for loss of expectancy of life, which seems brutally little when put in those terms, is the usual amount awarded by the United Kingdom courts in all cases and is not confined to air accidents. Therefore, it is in no way affected by the Warsaw-Hague conventions.
I should like to emphasise the value of these conventions with one other example that has come to my mind recently—the recent case of an aircraft that disappeared on a flight over the sea. Some wreckage of it has been found, but there is little prospect that the cause of the accident will ever be established. Therefore, the prospect would be of lengthy litigation to decide at whose door the responsibility for the accident could be laid. It is in a case of that sort particularly that the Warsaw Hague conventions can be of such great benefit to the dependants of those who have lost their lives.
Of course, money can never recompense for the emotional losses that follow in the wake of an aircraft crash with injury and death, but adequate and prompt compensation—again I emphasise "prompt"—can enable one to cope better with the practical problems that are an inescapable part of such tragic events. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's intention to take whatever steps are practicable to see that compensation reflects so far as is possible the needs of the travelling public. I shall not resent at all any pressure that comes from him to see that that is done.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Seven o'clock a.m.